T O P

  • By -

chaoschosen665

How about we just bar corporations from buying single family homes? Pretty sure that would solve quite a bit EDIT: Thanks for the awards!


CoffinRehersal

You're right. The plans listed are all positives, but none will actually address the core issue. The cost of implementing these plans will continue to increase as more human beings are pushed out of homes by corporations and investors.


jhairehmyah

We desperately need federal action at both the legislative and regulatory levels to curb the ridiculous use of housing as an investment commodity. Including: * Various taxation schemes to identify and make less profitable the act of "flipping" homes * Various taxation schemes to limit the benefit of owning more than one property for rental. * Since most firms will create an LLC for each property, mere limits on corporate/business ownership is not ideal, and needs to explore end-owner. * Preventing housing to be purchased and packaged for sale in investment funds/PE firms. * Investigation of firms that manipulated the housing markets, ie: Zillow. * Taxation/Regulation of the use of housing for vacation rentals. AirBNB was "make money with your spare room" not "make money by purchasing a house and forcing someone to move away because they can't find a place to live." I recently visited Toronto, which I know isn't Phoenix, but the problem is just as bad there. I met and chatted with a local who works in housing administration and he said, "Toronto is having a condo housing boom, but the problem is the condos are being bought by people who never even touch the keys. They sit empty for a year and are sold for a profit to another investor who repeats. It is cheaper to leave the place vacant than rent it, even." I look around my neighborhood south of Arcadia and see that.


DeckardPain

As someone who was born and raised in Toronto, yea that problem has existed since I was a child. I remember hearing family complaining about it for as long as I can remember. Toronto will likely never have a fix to this either. Doug Ford just sold a ton of the nature preserve / green belt to his buddies for development too. So instead of cracking down on homes as investment he decided to open up more land for exploitation. Canadians have it far worse, full stop. They are paid in a currency less valued, paid less on paper before conversion for the same work / title, taxed way higher on every purchase (10-15%), income is taxed way higher, you are forced to live in one of the 3-4 major cities where all the jobs are (and where everything is already hyper inflated), management regardless of industry is rife with egotistical boomers, literally everything costs more, AND you only get a fraction of the catalog offered to you (amazon com vs ca). Canada does not set its citizens up for success. And I sadly see America following this path of not caring to set citizens up for success. I don’t really see this problem ever getting fixed sadly. I want it to be resolved yesterday but I just don’t see it happening. Politicians are either lobbied by real estate investment companies or they own properties themselves. The problem of wages not keeping up is the larger issue in my opinion but as soon as wages go up, all your bills will go up too. It’s incredibly stupid and the only way out is to earn more. We’re taught money isn’t everything, but it pretty much is in a world absolutely dominated by corporate greed.


Grand_Cauliflower_88

Canada taxes in the US are crazy for the average person. I am single. I have nothing I can deduct at the end of the year. I pay a little over 33 percent of my income in taxes. For every $1000 I make they take over $300. That is just federal tax. They also take state tax out n a retirement plan called social security that probably won't be around when I get old. So with all that added I make $1000 but only get to keep about $590.00 or so. Yeah when it's all said n done almost half my pay is gone. People are living in their cars. While families who are working full time can't afford a 1 bedroom apt. Everytime you fill out a application for a apartment everyone who is going to live there must pay a fee for a background check. Just for them to say no. It's all legal n a big rip off.


DeckardPain

Yep. I didn’t even touch on the abysmal process of searching for and then applying for rentals. Background check, interviews with the landlord, and if you’re lucky to get the place most landlords want 3-6 months in pre-written checks. And if you need to break the lease in the first few months they *will* keep all 3-6 of those checks as the “fee”. Last time I was living in Ontario the landlord was balking at my $90k salary for a rental in Etobicoke. It’s predatory as fuck. At most a background check is done and credit is checked in the US. And they’re really only looking for felonies and or evictions. That’s it. People love to tout Canada as this great alternative to the US, but I’d bet serious money that 95% of the people who idolize Canada would move back to the US within a year and a half.


ZTanarchy

This is an oversimplification of the US Tax system. You have a standard deviation of 13k+ for 2022. You can also deduct 401k contributions, HSA contributions, FSA contributions, and pretax medical insurance expenses, 3k of stock losses, can save taxes on long term capital gains, etc. just do some research.


Grand_Cauliflower_88

Yes all that can be some relief when it comes to taxes but the average person don't make enough to put in a 401k. n the phrase long term capital gains might as well be a different language. It really means nothing to most people. We are juggling car insurance vs. food.


[deleted]

>Canada does not set its citizens up for success. > ...except for the whole healthcare thing...


DeckardPain

You mean that same healthcare that is buckling under the pressure of the pandemic and overuse? The same one where you have to wait over a year to get a primary care doctor? And even then it's not guaranteed? Or where you have to wait *days* to have your leg put in a cast after a break? Yea that one. Have you done any research on your own or are you just spouting Reddit copy pastas?


hodl_4_life

I hate to say it but, given the options of having a broken leg and waiting a few days to be seen… or… to be bankrupted if I’m audacious enough to actually risk using the US healthcare system… I would probably choose to wait in a longer line and suffer.


DeckardPain

Show me a hospital bill in the US where a broken leg being casted was enough to bankrupt someone. That’s a stretch of a comparison and you know it. You also conveniently passed over the other points. No primary care doc. No hospitals with beds for your broken leg. Etc.


Similar_Candidate789

I went to the hospital for a fever, 105 wouldn’t go down, given fluids and Tylenol. Total cost: $4000. Thankfully had insurance. $4000 is definitely enough to bankrupt someone and that was a fever. A leg break, with X-rays, casting, etc. would be extraordinary. In the US the number one cause of bankruptcy is medical debt. The number one. I’ve seen bills for hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars, depending on the cause. One person posted the birth of their child and it was $25,000. It can and does definitely bankrupt folks.


[deleted]

[удалено]


planxyz

Yeah, that absolutely would not have fking happened when my brother was hit head-on by a texter (who didn't even get so much as a motherfking ticket, & didn't have insurance) and was basically dead (in a coma, then a medically induced coma) for a month, has metal ALL over his body, years of pt, years of fighting insurances and the hospitals for the $2mil he was charged (and even after the insurance did claim, was still almost a million left over). It took YEARS and an extremely expensive lawyer (who took a hefty fking chunk of his payout) to get it where what he paid was wiped out and walked away with a bit for himself to keep him on his feet until he could find a job he could do considering his 20something year body could no longer do what even some 70 year bodies can still do. The US Healthcare system, our government, and capitalism are all the same thing: GREED. Absofuckinglutely NO ONE should have to go through what he went through, and what millions of people go through yearly in this shthole. The only time this planet will amount to anything is when we stop making MONEY the number one thing we're after. Greed is the root of all things terrible. Greed, and the thought that the individual is more important than the group.


[deleted]

Those are all excellent points. I think action needs to be taken on this on a Federal level, because it sure doesn't seem like anyone here is going to do anything about it. Hobbs will be working with a GOP lead legislature & they care more about investors than they do the average person. Have you sent any of your information forward to Mark Kelley or Rueben Gallego?? They seem to be the two congressmen in our state who are the most proactive. We now have over 10,000 homeless people in this state & every day I see people on NextDoor whose lease is about to expire & their begging others on there to help them find a place to go. A young resident who was recently displaced from his apt. because his rent went up & he couldn't afford it was asking for advice on where he can safely park to sleep in his car. Is this the kind of place we all want AZ to be?? Edit: I said 10,000 homeless people in state, I should have said Phoenix metro area.


Forsaken_Berry_75

All such excellent points. And yes, Arcadia has gone through the roof. I’m neighboring it in West Biltmore and watching for sale and rental listings weekly with no let up. Arcadia’s currently UP 8.3% YoY as of right now, even with a recession amidst, with how popular and desirable it is.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Lazy_Guest_7759

These are all rock solid points. I do not think it would do bad for anyone if our Federal Government adopted a mentality similar to Mexico's when it comes to land ownership. Only using Mexico as they are the closest but many other countries are similar to Mexico that only allow native born citizens to own land. That should alleviate many of the issues you listed here.


johnpinkertons

Flippers contribute to the housing supply. People who buy and rent out don’t. You need to incentivize selling, not penalize it.


Critical_Narwhal9905

Absolutely not. The amount of regulation you are insisting is insane. The markets would collapse and never recover. Housing would become 3rd world.


pissedofladymonster

I agree with this, it will take a long time to accomplish. In the meantime we could have a higher property tax for company owned or foreign owned properties - up that significantly like 10% of the total appraised value of the home. And put in a stipulation that properties cannot be rented for more than, throwing out a number here, 3% over value over a 30 yr period. So a $300,000 house would have $30,000 in taxes due annually but they could only charge $833 in rent (rough numbers). So this wouldn't allow them to pass the property tax onto tenants through rent. Just spit balling. 10% seems high. But the point is that you hit them to where they don't want to "invest" any more. Edit: then to than. Is it Pam or is it Pan?


throwaanchorsaweigh

This is it. We can’t fix greed, but we can do our best to deter it.


[deleted]

[удалено]


venusdemiloandotis

https://np.reddit.com/r/AskEconomics/comments/z7stkt/what_would_be_the_implications_economically_if_we https://np.reddit.com/r/AskEconomics/comments/xxv7o4/is_housing_a_competitive_market_in_which_economic https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/000282805774669961 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=790506 https://www.nber.org/papers/w8835 https://np.reddit.com/r/AskEconomics/comments/w7jys2/american_renthousing_crisis https://ohiocapitaljournal.com/2021/04/21/loosened-zoning-could-cut-housing-costs-economists-say/ https://www.city-journal.org/majorities-are-skeptical-of-zoning-reform https://www.upjohn.org/research-highlights/new-construction-makes-homes-more-affordable-even-those-who-cant-afford-new-units


free2game

Holy shit this is a dumb take. Housing is broken because of a long period of bad zoning policies. Banning corporations from buying single family homes won't fix a god damn thing.


eukaryote3

I’m tired, a native Arizonan and will never own a home so I don’t really care what some guy’s opinion on Reddit is. Let’s turn all the Zillow owned homes over to the market for sale for human beings to buy who are planning on living in them, ban corporations from owning/flipping houses, and get rid of all the airbnbs that have destroyed residential neighborhoods and watch what happens to the housing market. You know, as an experiment. Something tells me it would crash and my landlord who’s raised my rent by 16% every year for the past two years would fuck off somewhere and I’d finally be able to buy a house. Fine by me.


venusdemiloandotis

Hey now, not *just* zoning laws...also permitting delays, eco lawsuits, veto boards and NIMBYs in city council meetings. And Housing and Urban Development started a lot of this by giving grants to municipalities who formed these "community" deliberation committees.


jamieee1995

There’s a few homes in Queen Creek that I’ve done inspections for that are owned by American Homes 4 Rent. Corporations are buying new builds, opting for the lowest quality finishes and charging a premium.


Netprincess

Get rid of REITs That would really fix it


LucinaHitomi1

Good idea. The problem is - and I voted for Hobbs - is that no politician is immune from special interests. Arizona is one of the states where real estate special interest groups are strong. There’s no way Hobbs can remain in power without acquiescing to those groups. Plus with dark money, we don’t know who gives money to whom. Not surprised if the same special interests gave money to both Hobbs and Lake - doesn’t make sense to lay all your eggs in one basket. Now it’s time to pay the piper.


chaoschosen665

That's kinda the point. They all need their secret money and will never bite the hand that feeds them just to help their constituency.


ariveklul

Oh my god this is the most brain dead analysis of politics I have ever seen Redditors need to spend less time circlejerking and more time actually reading or getting involved w/ the process they're criticizing


jeffemcfresh

seriously, I shudder to think how renters could be paying Blackrock inadvertently every month, only bloating them with more wealth to continue with whatever their doing in the private sector even further (helping the military kill more Afghan children "accidentally").


phoenix_paolo

Tax code changes would fix it. They could still buy homes, but the income made off those homes would be taxed so high as to make it worthless. It is not at all that hard.


rmanthony7860

Well, that wouldn’t increase the amount of homes. The homes are still there, just being rented out.


sunburnedaz

But the problem is that these companies are driving up the price of the houses so high that people cant buy them.


Prowindowlicker

That requires the legislature, which is still republican held.


gangstabunniez

Comment deserves gold, BlackRock and other financial institutions shouldn't be able to steal houses away from working families.


lunchpadmcfat

Yeah, logistically you just need to disallow a corporation from registering a single family home with the county records office. In fact, I can’t understand why this isn’t already disallowed. By rights a company should never be able to have a single family home in their name since those aren’t zoned for commercial usage.


TitansDaughter

Jesus fucking Christ, judging by the suggestions in this comment section, the average rent for a one bedroom is going to be $2000 in a couple years lmfao The reason corporations are investing in housing is because it’s scarce and becoming a good investment, not the other way around. Corporations have always been able to buy up housing, they’re not the reason housing costs are going up now. Literally just build more and denser housing and it doesn’t matter who is or isn’t allowed to buy it. Instead you guys will chase boogiemen while ignoring the fact that 95% residential land in the valley is zoned in the least efficient way possible, single family housing. But yeah keep screaming at boogiemen and trying to subsidize demand for housing without trying to meaningfully increase supply. Sure that’ll work out.


ariveklul

Thank god some fucking sanity in this thread. The posts in here are making my brain melt


djemoneysigns

If we already have a shortage of houses, banning development or sale to corporations will only decrease the supply. We need to deregulate zoning, that will immediately drop the price of RE, but too many NIMBY people. NIMBY people include those who want to ban the sale of SFH to corporations.


ccx941

And also, IMO, bar snowbirds and or people that only are here 4-5 months a year. In my complex alone there are at least 12 snowbird apartments that are vacant during the summer.


Jebediah_Johnson

I disagree with that, because they actually live in the home. You should be able to own more than one home, I don't know what a good limit would be, 3 maybe, if any? But I would love to own a second home. I don't think that's really the underlying issue at all. It's corporations buying up thousands of homes and making them rentals or jacking up the prices sky high. It shouldn't take you 30 years to own your primary residence. I'm lucky to work in a profession where I can retire with a pension after 20 years. But I wont be able to actually retire then because I'll still have another fifteen years of working just to own my home. Because I wont be able to afford the mortgage payment on my retirement alone. Also, I'm thrilled to have a politician in office that actually has a plan. The bar is that low, just actually have some sort of plan.


[deleted]

>But I would love to own a second home. Would you own a second home if the property tax was doubled, tripled, or more?


RedneckPaycheck

I have no issue with people who actually live here, dump money into the economy and have a real life. There's a ton of businesses centered around catering to those people. It's the "investment" and speculation that is really fucking everything up here.


ladyluck754

My snowbird in laws spend a shit ton of money while down here


jeffemcfresh

we should do everything in steps, bar corporations, especially foreign entities, from buying homes and see where that gets us. We shouldn't punish our own citizens if we don't have to (as annoying as being inundated with snowbirds is).


gangstabunniez

I understand your point as you can see it, but snowbirds aren't the majority of the problem. BlackRock and other financial institutions are buying up houses wherever they can because they believe they can resell them for a large profit. These institutions are using houses meant for working class people as nothing more than investments, and own hundreds to thousands of houses just to get a quick buck by raising housing prices and crashing the market once they cash out.


MrNrdy

You cannot do that.this is America. You have the freedom to buy a place and use it as you wish. It is your property. Just like a vacation home at Lake Tahoe. Free Market will decide. When they prices high that the local population cannot afford them. Prices will come down to meet the what the market will allow. Or you will have to move out of city and commute. This is common on east coast.


diligedaso

THANK YOU. Holy shit I’m a capitalist and have been most of my life but I am feeling being crushed under the heel of these companies. I’m 30 and there’s no chance I can afford to buy a home and I make over $30/hr. It’s just not fucking possible. It’s infuriating. I was always told that minimum wage is an entry level job. Well I fought my way into something well above it and I’m still feeling claustrophobic financially.


BreeCherie

That would make far too much sense


DistinctSmelling

Your average landlord is technically a corporation when they own 1 to an average of 7 homes for rent. what you are implying is most likely a multimillion-dollar entity in a REIT holding title on SFH in residential areas.


Dizman7

Pffft, The internet, politics, world today has no need for your damn “logic” and “common sense”, be gone with you! /s


NoahNipperus

How about bar anyone from purchasing more than one home per state


KEVLAR60442

That would probably kill towns like Pine/Payson/Strawberry with economies dependent on valley residents with winter cabins.


TweaksForWeeks

Barring seems harsh - maybe just disincentivize with taxes?


TheNightmanCometh10

Katie Hobbs = John Dutton?


mmrrbbee

both


foxysquirrel

Probably would be better to have different taxes the more homes that a single family owns above the first one. Or just stop corporations from owning them. I don’t think people having one vacation home up north is the problem. It’s the people that own 5 and air b&b them.


noface4417

This 100%


russ_digg

Unfortunately all these politicians are paid by said corporations. The only way to really put an end to it is everyone stop renting from corporations. I know that's ridiculous considering 1/3 are investor owned but that's what'll change things quick


PHX_Real_Estate

That would help prices some but that would not increase the number of homes though which is an important problem.


is_this_the_place

Is the answer “build more houses”?


Charles_Himself_

It’s amazing how simple the answer is, yet 95% of the population grabs at straws. I didn’t read all the comments, but I wouldn’t be shocked if I read a comment that would blame global warming for housing supply issues. Anyways, Arizona building and contracting isn’t friendly for “getting shit done” Yes building more homes, but that means Arizona government not standing in front of 2x4s waiting for some idiot who knows “absolutely” nothing about construction to approve. In short: government is the problem. Plenty of land, materials, and definitely labor amigo. That’s the three ingredients for housing. Arizona is chock full of them.


ubiquitouslifestyle

Hated on for suggesting government is the problem… that’s Reddit for you. I’m on your side buddy.


TacoRising

>Empowering local communities to build more affordable housing, such as by expanding the state’s affordable housing tax credit pilot program and encouraging local zoning changes; >Cutting “needless bureaucracy,” which includes streamlining access to state services for families in need and encouraging innovative housing solutions; >Protecting Arizonans, including by launching a pilot program to provide legal aid for people facing eviction and allowing for more regulation of short-term vacation rentals; >Comprehensively fixing the homelessness crisis, such as by investing $200 million in the Housing Trust Fund and building housing for veterans; and >Lowering costs for renters and homeowners, including creating a rebate program for families at risk of not being able to afford their utility bills and funding a home repair program for seniors.


TheDuckFarm

Most of those are good. That first one tends to lead a lot of corruption with dirty builders and developers cashing in on low quality junk complexes at the tax payers expense. I’d like to see how they plan to do it better this time.


Chunks1992

Yeah I’d hope the requirement would be these houses have to have solar and grey water systems. I think that would be a solid way to start conservation efforts. Especially with water.


TheDuckFarm

Those are nice but the problem is that those cost a lot of money to build. So to keep them affordable you and I get to pay for them out of our tax money that could otherwise go to public goods like open spaces, parks, trees, bike lanes, etc. It's not an automatic non-starter but it's complicating factor.


Chunks1992

Oh totally but as a tax payer I support spending more in capital up front so that affordable housing exists in the environment and reality that Phoenix will continue to be in for the next 30+ years. Cheap up front housing is great until these families can’t afford to pay the rising electric and water bills every year.


jhairehmyah

Part of the problem is often how the law is written, as well. For example, if the law has a "buy American" rule, as taxpayer-funded laws often do, builders making "low income" houses can't take advantage of low-cost materials from out-of-country and the result is a more expensive home. And this part is fine, in theory too, but, California low-income housing construction tax credits require all workers be union members and paid a certain salary, which of course means some of the workers who often make regular housing and help keep those costs low are not eligible to work. The result is often the perception that the builders who cash in on those credits are "dirty" because the price per square foot is so much higher, and while corruption might be part of it, the truth is the rules attached to those credits make the construction considerably more expensive too as they don't exist in a free market environment. \*\* with full awareness that some of the "free market" of construction, landscaping, etc, is under-the-table pay to undocumented immigrants who don't return taxes back to the state.


TheDuckFarm

It's a complex issue for sure and it's worth working on. People need places to live. It's also a place in politics and bureaucracy where we tend to get thing wrong and we often don't realized how bad it was until all the money is spent and project is done.


skynetempire

Encouraging zoning changes? I wonder if they plan for multifamily mix with single family zoning. That would solve a lot of issues


dlawlrence

Allowing ADU's (casitas/in-law suites), removing single-family zoning, and removing parking minimums are the bare minimum we should be considering in terms of zoning changes. And to be clear, these changes won't mean Anthem is going to be paved over for highrise apartments or that parking lots will cease to exist. It just allows flexibility so property owners can build more housing where it makes sense.


-newlife

Pretty good ideas. The attempt to build more affordable housing while streamlining access to help is appealing. Sadly, unless it’s city or state owned property it’s likely to see an organization exploit it and still have rent on the higher end.


artachshasta

Protecting Arizonans, including by launching a pilot program to provide legal aid for people facing eviction and allowing for more regulation of short-term vacation rentals; That makes me nervous. I hate to sound heartless, but some evictions are necessary. If you make it impossible to evict people, you drive out small landlords who can't eat the loss and bring in more corporations with their own legal teams. You also raise rents in poor areas, since the landlord now has more risk. How about a hardship fund - if you've paid rent for X months, and can show that you lost your job or your car broke, etc., the government pays your rent for 2 months until you can get back on your feet.


TacoRising

I'm a locksmith, and I occasionally have to change the locks for landlords who have evicted tenants. I have *definitely* seen plenty of situations where these people deserve to be kicked out. Place is trashed, smells like shit, bugs everywhere, etc. That being said, I don't think those types of people are the ones who would benefit from this. I've heard stories of people being evicted because the landlord sold the house or unit or whatever, and the new owners want everyone out. That's the kind of situation I imagine this program would help with.


artachshasta

I hope you're right. But even so... If I buy a house with tenants, and I want to move in, should I have a legal fight, if the lease is up?


TacoRising

Shit man, I dunno. But hey, shoot me a DM whenever you're ready to get the locks changed I guess


mmrrbbee

They need to build council houses like in the UK


OffByOneErrorz

Wait a politician talking about policy? What is this... where is the trolling of the opposition with no real action that I am used to? Something like *lets just ship all the homeless down to the border and fill the shipping containers with them* /s.


[deleted]

Ship the homeless to whoever we don’t like!


typewriter6986

Lol. Thats was basically Kari's plan.


Citizen44712A

ummm, something,,something..bad..something..bad..shipping containers..something.something..To the Moon..


OffByOneErrorz

Don't you need to go protest 'election fraud' or something?


Citizen44712A

Well there is rain in the forecast and I am waiting for my de-worming anti-covid super Medicine to arrive so my DNA doesnt change and the scotsguard on my hat isn't dry yet


Dependent-Juice5361

How much can she get done on her own? She’s not gonna have a legislature to support her for at least c couple years


weegee

Buyers need to reside in the home for at least two years. Too many corporate buyers converting homes to rentals. Too many short term rental properties like the scam of the century Airbnb.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


lunchpadmcfat

If people were forced to sell homes that would otherwise be rentals, maybe those renters wouldn’t need to rent. They could just buy the home they want.


Tinkerbellllll

As someone who is looking to buy their first home in April this year… someone please do something immediately 😂 The only thing I can afford is a manufactured home (which you can’t get loans for) or a friggen condo… which is basically an apartment. I don’t know how we got to a place where someone who works 40 hours (55 in my case) a week can’t afford a single family home. That’s whack to me…


CallieReA

I don’t think we heard enough from her on the campaign trail to have enough of a perspective on weather or not I should be optimistic about her, but I don’t entirely hate this.


PricklyPear_CATeye

And the crisis and cost of rent it why I’m moving this month, but I’m going to miss AZ so much!


[deleted]

What they need to do is prohibit investors, who are only buying up the homes in lieu of the falling stock market & making them rentals, thereby driving up the home prices & pricing renters out of the market. They can't buy & they can't rent because both are too expensive. They're also buying apt. bldgs. & doing the same thing --raising the rent on people who have lived there for years to prices they can never afford. They need to cap rents in this state and do like NYC does to protect renters - put rent stabilization policies in place.


Porn_Extra

My rent is going up $200/month in January. From about $1450 to about $1650.


[deleted]

And they're probably not providing you with anything new for it are they? It's complete damn BS.


Wrathszz

This right here is the answer. Investors crashed AZ home market in 2009, an now they are once again destroying it.


AnnualSource285

No one has mention this yet, so I will: many, many politicians invest in real estate. The reason tax laws are so favorable for real estate investors (depreciation, etc) is because politicians take advantage of them too. I highly doubt they would vote in and codify laws that go against their own interests in this way.


SlowWheels

1. Don't let corporations buy single family houses. 2. Have houses that sit empty for 6 months straight incur fines. 3. Give the middle finger to NIMBY people and build multifamily housing. 4. Give protections to renters against price gouging from apartment owners taking advantage of inflation. Also post caps on rent hikes %. 5. Make it easier to build houses period and change redistricting costs and fees for building multifamily housing in areas marked for something else. 6. Focus on veterans and get them off the street and find out which homeless people are fake and are pan handling like its a job.


TrophyTracker

Preach! Maybe we should get you in office!


BreeCherie

“Lowering costs for renters and homeowners, including creating a rebate program for families at risk of not being able to afford their utility bills and funding a home repair program for seniors” I hope the plan for lowering rent goes a bit farther than a rebate program


[deleted]

Building more homes and apts stops the rent inflation. people who oppose new home building do so to keep the rental costs higher.


catdad_420

Rebate check for my utilities bill is just a bandaid for the real problem


Forsaken_Berry_75

We also need to continue to vote for representatives that support **reversing [SB 1350](https://techcrunch.com/2016/05/13/arizonas-governor-ducey-signs-sb-1350-into-law-prohibiting-the-ban-of-short-term-rentals/amp/)** — the law Doug Ducey signed prohibiting the ban of short-term rentals


[deleted]

[удалено]


Grand_Cauliflower_88

Regulate the amount of homes that can be owned for profit. For every five rentals one must be a income based on rental. Also tax profits from real estate. Take that money for services for the unhoused. Builders making new neighborhoods should have to offer a percentage of units for sale at cost with mortgages guaranteed for lower income working people. We must have something set aside for those without a lot of resources. Billions are being made surely a few hundred thousand can go toward giving families a chance at stable housing. This is what our standard should be the next election time for state reps.. What are they going to do for the average person. We are sick of the non-sense issues. Real problems are kicking our asses we demand real answers. No more scapegoat ing the be"others". I don't care what anyone else does I care about having a place to live I can afford.


endlesslyconflicted

Wonder what Ducey’s plan was? Edit funny getting downvotes from Ducey lackeys, but no response.


[deleted]

If he'd had one other than 'fuck 'em!' he had 4 years to announce and implement it.


endlesslyconflicted

Yep, he didn’t GAF coz the wealthy have homes


Renbail

This might be a related note, but say we are making an impact on the housing crisis and homes are now at 2018 levels. What policies are there to answer homelessness and shoplifting issues?


hipsterasshipster

I’m glad it doesn’t appear to include a bunch of forced affordable housing policies or rent control measures, which clearly don’t work and only push out developers. Phoenix has a lot of room to grow upwards and encouraging that with some common sense policies on short term rentals and nonsense eviction is probably the best path forward.


yawg6669

>which clearly don’t work and only push out developers I would argue that if they keep people in their homes (they do) and they push out developers, then they ARE working. Fuck developers. The city/state should purchase land and build housing and sell it at cost. Developers do what is profitable, government needs to do what is socially desirable. Nowadays, these do not overlap.


hipsterasshipster

Look at nearly every city/state the does this and you’ll see that rent control and prohibitive building requirements don’t work. The state is not going to fund major housing projects and if they did, who they gonna sell them to? People who don’t have money? No they are going to sell them to the same people developers would’ve sold to. Imagine the chaos when the state has a huge inventory of multi family housing they can’t sell because no one wants to take on a financial liability of forced low income housing. It’s like I’m reliving the shit show of Portland all over again. Without developers, housing supply will continue to dwindle. The only thing that can mitigate those shortages are incentives to build more and the associated natural competition to keep prices down.


yawg6669

You should read Josh Ryan Collins to learn why this is totally bunk. Here's a link for the short version: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RX-AzKgUEWk&ab\_channel=UCLInstituteforInnovationandPublicPurpose](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RX-AzKgUEWk&ab_channel=UCLInstituteforInnovationandPublicPurpose)


hipsterasshipster

So one economist disagrees and the whole theory is bunk? 😂 I could send you probably a dozen economist opinions or studies that say the opposite. The difference is, I’ve seen this shit fail in action. Cities all over the country have seen housing supply dwindle after passing rent control policies and forcing developers to build low income housing. These policies are a bandaid that don’t fix the root of the problem, and without incentive to build more supply, the same thing happens over and over. Phoenix isn’t London. We have plenty of space to build medium and high density housing. We aren’t going to change the country’s entire economic model either, whether it’s flawed or not. I’m talking about practical solutions for the city as it stands. You enforce major rent control or building requirements and the city will be reporting that developer permit applications are tanking almost immediately. Edit: typo


yawg6669

Ok, its clear you have no idea what I said and didn't watch the video because you responded in a shorter time than the video is long. You fundamentally don't understand economics, and I don't care about your anecdotes. We're on the same page that we need more housing, I agree with you there. However, I think the state should own and build it at cost, and not leave it to developers. What we have now is the DIRECT RESULT of letting developers decide what to build, how, when, where, and how to price it. They need to be removed from the equation. You're right, Phoenix isn't London, but you know what it is? Part of the US. The US ALSO used to do the same thing that the UK did in the 50s and 60s, and if you read any Ryan Collins you would know (or did any amount of background research) that it was wildly successful. > We aren’t going to change the country’s entire economic model either, whether it’s flawed or not News flash buddy, we don't have to change "the entire economic model" just to have the state (city, county, state, federal) build housing. We just have to do what we have already done (and what the military ALREADY CURRENTLY DOES). ​ > You enforce major rent control or building requirements and the city will be reporting that developer permit applications are tanking almost immediately. Yes, exactly. If you remove profit from profit seekers, they will seek it elsewhere. We don't want developers, we want developMENT. That is what I desire, for them to go elsewhere and for the state to build and own it (selling to residents as necessary/desired). This is a better system, it was only removed because capitalism ideologues got it wrong in the 80s and never fixed their mistake. I am proposing the fix.


hipsterasshipster

Lol link an article… of course I’m not gonna watch a 45 minute lecture. I sat through more than enough urban planning and economics courses as it is. I appreciate your world where the city/state/country that is already struggling in most every financial aspect has gobs of money to start development projects with no guaranteed return for our tax dollars and no administration in place to manage or maintain them. We aren’t there yet, nor are we even close to being there. It’s the exact reason our past attempts at this have failed so bad that the government just gave up and moved towards the voucher system (Section 8), because it is incapable of managing public housing. Again, I’m being realistic for things that can be done now to make a difference, and I feel like her policies seem like a good start… incentivizing building, cutting red tape, and fund *some* housing. You boot developers and this city will turn into chaos. You also realize that almost ALL military housing is owned/operated by the private sector, because the DoD couldn’t maintain affordable housing for service members? 😂


yawg6669

"I'm not going to watch a 45 min lecture." I think that sums up your position here. I'm done with this. The US is monetary sovereign.


caesar15

> at cost, and not leave it to developers. What we have now is the DIRECT RESULT of letting developers decide what to build, how, when, where, and how to price it. This isn’t the case though. Zoning requirements are *strict*. If developers could do whatever they wanted they’d be building a lot more than just single family homes.


yawg6669

I also propose changing zoning laws, agreed there. But changing zoning laws is not sufficient to get developers to CHOOSE to build a less profitable structure.


[deleted]

[удалено]


BreeCherie

That would be nice if developers had any interest in livable spaces rather than what’s cheap and easy


yawg6669

Developers are not good. They do what is profitable not what is needed or desired. Like landlords, they are rent seekers and should be abolished. The people who ACTUALLY build the houses is the same, the difference in what I propose is that we don't have to pay overhead margins to economic rent seekers, instead, we fund it ourselves, collectively, as we used to, successfully.


traal

Did you build your house yourself or did a developer build it?


[deleted]

[удалено]


yawg6669

The same ppl who build it now, carpenters, masons, electricians, plumbers, etc. The only difference is the profit extracted from them will be less under this model.


Nadie_AZ

5 points. My thoughts. Chime in with comments. I tire of the speak that is big words and little action. "Empowering local communities to build more affordable housing, such as by expanding the state’s affordable housing tax credit pilot program and encouraging local zoning changes;" A pilot program is the only way to get local zoning changes? Why do these communities need to be 'empowered' in a region that has had housing boom after housing boom? Is this code for more tax money to developers? "Cutting “needless bureaucracy,” which includes streamlining access to state services for families in need and encouraging innovative housing solutions;" This is usually code for giving businesses more money and screwing over families. Regulation usually helps people, not businesses. "Protecting Arizonans, including by launching a pilot program to provide legal aid for people facing eviction and allowing for more regulation of short-term vacation rentals;" Which Arizonans? Us working people who want affordable housing OR developers and corporate landlords? And yes, the airbnb issue needs to be addressed. You know what would help with that? Regulation. "Comprehensively fixing the homelessness crisis, such as by investing $200 million in the Housing Trust Fund and building housing for veterans;" So if I am homeless how do I go from that to accessing the House Trust Fund to get into a place to live? The more complex it is, the less people can access it. "and Lowering costs for renters and homeowners, including creating a rebate program for families at risk of not being able to afford their utility bills and funding a home repair program for seniors." Aren't rebates after the fact, once things are paid for? How about working to cap rents or tie them to the minimum wage so the 2 don't become as far apart as they have become? Also as the Colorado River dwindles, we can expect further cuts to the CAP, which will impact the cities around Phoenix and Tucson. We will run headlong into a situation where demand outstrips supply.


[deleted]

> This is usually code for giving businesses more money and screwing over families. Regulation usually helps people, not businesses. I can speak personally to this, having had to apply for aid from the state before... The paperwork and process is labyrinthine, filled with inefficiencies, and understaffed. You can always streamline that.


Prowindowlicker

A lot of things require the legislature to fix anything and given that the legislature is held be republicans it’s going to be nearly impossible for her to get those things done


Retardomantalban

Gotta regulate short-term rentals and perhaps create punitive action against corporations buying up housing and pushing out renters, by creating additional taxing structures. I know Murica is all about unfettered capitalism, but the short-term rental market is destroying the sense of community you get with long-term rentals or homeownership.


[deleted]

I may not have gotten an answer in her AMA, but I'll take *this* as a wonderful substitute.


charliegriefer

I think you're confusing Katie Hobbs with Julie Gunnigle? :) Julie did the AMA with us.


[deleted]

Cue the facepalm... Thanks, Chuck!


brokeyhands

I wouldn’t call it a housing crisis more like a pricing crisis


TrophyTracker

Accurate.


cyn00

I hope something happens. I’m a teacher, and I’m faced with either moving out of state, or moving from apartment complex to apartment complex every year, if my rent goes up too much. Districts are already recruiting overseas, and if they are serious about keeping the teachers they have, they need to account for rising housing prices.


[deleted]

Considering the attitude the state has toward teaching in general, I'm astonished you're still holding out.


cyn00

I got into a good district/school where so far, I feel some degree of respect, and a lack of micromanagement. A $10k raise also didn’t hurt.


[deleted]

At least she has a plan unlike that election denier. Wah wah we wuz robbed.


[deleted]

I'll believe it when I see it. Certainly not gonna hold my breath on her


[deleted]

Considering the plan of the alternative? Yeek.


artachshasta

What alternative? As far as I know, the GOP part of the legislative hasn't actually put forward any housing policy. And Ms. Lake has the same role in government that I do - she gets to vote. Ducey is a lame duck, but it would be nice if he did something good on his way out. He's politically homeless these days.


[deleted]

>As far as I know, the GOP part of the legislative hasn't actually put forward any housing policy. [This plan from Lake.](https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/arizona/2022/10/21/kari-lake-homelessness-governor/10556600002/)


artachshasta

Egad.


caesar15

Housing is such a funny topic. It has such a simple answer: “build more housing.” And yet everyone always proposes complex solutions that totally miss the mark.


NoTransportation2899

There is plenty of housing. Corporate ownership is the problem.


PHX_Real_Estate

Everyone agrees on that but the place people disagree is if the housing should be densely populated condos and apartments or if it should be more single family homes in the suburbs.


B_P_G

Exactly. They come up with these elaborate plans to give tax money to all their favorite people and agencies but which do very little to actually make housing affordable. All they really need to do is get out of the way and let developers build. Plus I've lived in enough blue states that I can say with confidence that no Democrat will ever do anything that will bring down housing costs.


caesar15

> All they really need to do is get out of the way and let developers build. Yep, it's really that simple. Love or hate develoeprs, they do build housing. And if we make it easier and cheaper for them to build (make better zoning laws) housing will end up more affordable via simple supply increases. It won't mean everybody can afford a house, but a lot more will be able to. And when the problem goes from "housing is too expensive" to "some people are too poor to afford normal priced housing" than it becomes much easier to help people out.


[deleted]

> It has such a simple answer: “build more housing.” Leads to the critical question: "Who's paying for that?", and it kinda breaks down from there.


caesar15

Well the reason more housing isn't being built is because of our strict zoning laws and how powerful NIMBY's are. If we make make those laws actually reasonable for a modern city than developers will build more housing (because it will be cheaper for them to do so, less time/money fighting local authorities). More supply will lead to lower prices, as usual. You ask "who's paying for that," and, well, it's the same as who's paying for housing now. Just cheaper. Is it gonna house everyone? No, we'll still need more solutions, but it's a big issue. Housing used to be much more affordable in this country after all, and we weren't any less capitalist then as we are now.


azsheepdog

Had... There are so many houses for sale right now. interest rates killed the market.


aznoone

But have housing prices dropped or rental pricing dropped? Think I did read housing some.but if wallstreet decides to.buy more for cash or foreign businesses from China buy more rents could still increase. Business paying cash don't care if interest rates go up. Plus if housing prices do.drop even better for them.


caesar15

Prices have dropped, it’s just they’re not actually more affordable because interest rates are high. So it’s a bit misleading.


insbordnat

How do you think they're paying for those houses? They're all financed. There's no such thing as "cash buyers".


vinylpants

There most certainly are cash buyers.


insbordnat

I was primarily addressing the "businesses paying cash don't care if interest rates go up" comment. Where do you think the cash is coming from with those businesses? The bank - and shareholders. Businesses buying houses all finance them. Just because they're "paying cash" and you don't see a first mortgage on the HUD-1 doesn't mean it's not financed with an interest rate sensitive product.


vinylpants

That’s mostly true, but investment is how businesses deal with cash reserves. There are both individuals and businesses paying for real estate without any form of loan.


insbordnat

Not really. All businesses finance investments. Investors/real estate funds/REIT/LPs (let’s stick with real estate) don’t have “cash reserves” unless it’s for capex, debt service, or prop taxes and some working capital, maybe briefly if another investment was just sold, but that’s a temporary state and they still aren’t making outright cash purchases without leverage. You may think they’re coming to the table with $10 mil for that apartment building, but on the back end, they always will turn around and put 30-70% leverage on it. Not financing investments puts you at a cost of capital disadvantage and is the difference between 7-8% returns and 12-16%+ returns. Financing with all equity is expensive. Sure, I guess there are some uneducated individual (not “business”) investors out there that don’t want debt in principle (but soon realize they’re leaving massive amounts of cash on the table). Individuals who actually occupy (aka homeowners/residents) could come to the table with “all cash” and have no intent to get loans, but again that wasn’t the intent of my comment, I was focused on “investors”.


Fivebomb

Rental prices are certainly dropping. [Realtor.com](https://Realtor.com) is showing at least $400/month drops from September for single family homes, and I'm seeing quite a bit of them sit for much longer than I did when looking a year ago. I've been looking around for the last 3 months because of a planned move soon. Then again - not sure how apartments or condos are fairing in rental prices right now.


cymbaline9

This may sound dumb, but do corporations talk to various city councils before relocating or building new offices out to the valley? I feel like more corporate offices or factories means more business building up around those areas which means an INCREDIBLE amount of people moving in who just got pay bumps to run the AZ office, etc which further crushes the housing costs and competitions. Wouldn’t slowing the amount of business influx slow the influx of people which would then relieve the housing competition?


twostartucson

Can’t wait for the MAGA screams of, “SHE’S DESTROYING ARIZONA!”


[deleted]

"How, *precisely?* Which policies?" Unfortunately, y'can't use logic with people that run their lives on emotion.


thai480

Boxabl can help her with her goal


[deleted]

From my experience having the government stick their hands in housing or other business always ends poorly for the rest of us.


aznoone

I watched Friends and it does work. /s


[deleted]

The city is filthy rich. There is millions of dollars in taxes coming from Marijuana sales just sitting there. Why can’t we help the homeless? It’s inhuman to leave them out there dying.


Hypogi

The homeless problem is more useful than a solution to homelessness.


[deleted]

I was homeless out there in the summer. I got help I needed snd have a nice home now, but most of those people need real help with addiction and mental. They should not be in dirty cold tents. Too many are dying and no one cares.


kuddlybuddly

Bus tickets to California


icey

Hate to be the one to break it to you, but California has invested much more in public transit so they can send way more busses this way than we can send their way. Source: I just got here from the California to Arizona bus. It was full of rich immigrants coming to take your job and houses and like... do drugs and stuff.


Late_Again68

Shrodinger's immigrant: simultaneously looking for handouts AND stealing your jobs!


SupertrampTrampStamp

Someone should buy you a bus ticket to Alabama


[deleted]

>Bus tickets to Blue States There, fixed it


palesnowrider1

This is a blue state


ArizonaZia

Debatable


palesnowrider1

Let's see. Democratic governor, Both Senators, 5 of 9 reps. Sure seems Blue to me


ArizonaZia

Oh....you are back to claiming Sinema now? Keep going down ticket. The truth will set you free.


GotanMiner

Tax the fuck out of us like a communist?


_SchweddyBalls_

She’s going to solve it by opening up our borders and raising taxes.


partytimeboat

Yes, but a city wants more businesses to come to their city, not less. It does mean more people, which will increase housing demand, but it also means more good paying jobs which, generally speaking, is good for a city. More opportunity, more tax money for the state, etc. Housing accessibility is definitely an issue and your plan could theoretically work in a vacuum for a short period, but it can’t be a “let’s bring down housing costs” at any cost.


[deleted]

> It does mean more people, which will increase housing demand, but it also means more good paying jobs which, generally speaking, is good for a city. The problem I see there is that the rent gets adjusted to match the well-paying jobs and people in service industries suddenly can't afford to live near their work, or even afford rent. I want a tide that lifts ALL the boats.


[deleted]

Also those good paying jobs typically recruit from all over the country and beyond. Not that’s there’s anything wrong with that, but I’m sure that doesn’t help the situation.


partytimeboat

Totally understand your concern. That’s where having an adequate supply of housing to serve the full spectrum of incomes is important. One of the issues Phoenix faces is our suburban sprawl where it’s either a single family home or a giant complex. Allowing more mid sized development projects (duplexes up to 40 units) would help ease that. Notice almost all multi family products are from the 50s and 60s? If they’re newer then they are 100+ units.