Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

movingtobay2019 t1_iw0c3xz wrote

Reply to comment by NetQuarterLatte in New York City Is Failing Tenants. So They’re Getting Organized by ethnt

You can't have a system where housing is both a source of wealth accumulation and affordable.

11

NetQuarterLatte t1_iw0js4q wrote

Yes you can.

Owning a home you can live, by itself is wealth.

The market price of the home going up is just a measure of market price, because the home and the quality of life you derive from it is the same.

0

Darrackodrama t1_iw126ks wrote

100% false we’ve gone through this nationwide.

Look at Vienna 40% quality public housing stock and 1/2 as expensive rents.

As long as housing is an investment it’ll be too expensive.

18

NetQuarterLatte t1_iw1g07d wrote

It can be owned and it can be cheap enough to buy with the cost amortized over time, if we make enough housing.

That’s better than being chained to a lease and paying rent for life.

−1

Darrackodrama t1_iw1hlg9 wrote

You’re assuming that the private market wants to build the type of units we’d need to build for housing to not be where it’s at. They don’t want to and that’s why we are where we are. Until we introduce public sector competition to the housing market or outright set rates on rent we will continue to get hosed.

We’ve tried private markets long enough and look where it’s gotten us.

7

NetQuarterLatte t1_iw2dipb wrote

The problem is that there is no market for constructions when only the “well connected” are able to get zoning/permits to build housing.

NYC was captured by a NIMBY mafia that is starving the city of new supply.

3

Darrackodrama t1_iw2kxxd wrote

Lol you are Proving my point, the housing market is run by a nimby cartel Because that’s what happens when you leave decisions of public concern in private hands.

It’s like in your mind these things just happened to occur; without considering that they maybe occurred because of the states deference to the market to House basically everyone.

If you wanna simp for capitalism that’s fine but we know how to fix housing crises because we have an example of how to do it. Whether you accept it or cope and blame zoning is up to you.

We need like 600,000 more affordable units and the private market is not going to provide them, so the public sector needs to step up and learn from Vienna

3

NetQuarterLatte t1_iw2lr2e wrote

Let’s just be clear that minority who captured the market is in the NYC Council and in Albany making laws, while posing as “advocates” for tenants.

2

movingtobay2019 t1_iw0risd wrote

So what happens when said long term tenant wants to move after 10 years before fully owning the home they rent?

Or what happens when the long term tenant has essentially bought out the LL (which is what you are implying if a long term renter can own the home they rent) and wants to move?

What price would they put the unit on market for if there is no wealth accumulation (price increase)?

−4

SolitaryMarmot t1_iw0wq6w wrote

You can have equity in an asset even if it's not 100% equity.

4

movingtobay2019 t1_iw1dxbe wrote

And what do you think happens if that asset never goes up in value and charges you interest and taxes every year? Do you think your wealth is going up or down?

And more importantly, who is going to invest to build this in the first place if the value never goes up? It's like asking people to invest their 401k in an asset with 0 growth.

You guys are living in a fantasy.

1

SolitaryMarmot t1_iw1eq7u wrote

What makes you think the asset wouldn't appreciate. I mean...there's a years long waiting list to buy places in Penn South and the Mitchell Lama buildings

2

movingtobay2019 t1_iw1eyys wrote

Because I am responding to someone who thinks an asset can both create wealth and be affordable. The only way an asset can be affordable is for it to not appreciate.

If you want homes to be affordable, you can't have a system that treats it as an asset that goes up in value.

3

NetQuarterLatte t1_iw2edye wrote

You’re too fixated on the market price.

Market price is just a measure of wealth, and an incomplete one.

Owning a home over the long term which you can enjoy is by itself wealth.

Get people a fixed 30-year rate so that they can buy their home over a long period of time, rather than paying rent without accumulating any equity.

We had a whole decade to do move a ton of long-term tenants into homeownership for very cheap and missed the boat. Next time the interest rates come down, we should be prepared for that.

1

MarbleFox_ t1_iw181ap wrote

What on earth are you on about? Owning a home accumulates wealth even if the value of the home never appreciates.

−1

movingtobay2019 t1_iw1dt14 wrote

Claiming a home accumulates wealth even if it never appreciates is like saying your wealth goes up in a savings account that pays 0 interest and charges you $1k a month in fees.

7

MarbleFox_ t1_iw1l01v wrote

If you spend $2k/m for 30 years on a mortgage that doesn’t appreciate you’ll still be left with a house worth about $300k, likewise if you pay $2k/m for 30 years on rent you’ll be left with absolutely nothing.

Which scenario represents more accumulation of wealth?

  1. Spending $720k over 30 years to own nothing

  2. Spending $720k over 30 years to own a $300k home.

0

movingtobay2019 t1_iw1m13y wrote

You will be spending more on the mortgage. There is no scenario where your mortgage and rent is the same for a similar unit in the same neighborhood in NYC unless you put an obscene amount of money down (money people don't have), especially with today's interest rates. On a 30 year mortgage with 20% down, your interest payments will exceed your loan with today's rates.

Add in taxes, HOA fees, maintenance, and buying/selling costs.

But that's besides the point because you aren't going to get anyone to invest capital to build the $400M apartment building in the first place.

2

NetQuarterLatte t1_iw2et86 wrote

That’s where I think the path for homeownership should be easier.

Coming up with the down payment, negotiating a lower interest rate, and doing it in bulk (many homeowners at the same time, many building maintenances at the same time, etc) is something that maybe only a government can help organize (organize, not run).

But you know, some people think it’s just better to chain those tenants to a lease for life.

2

MarbleFox_ t1_iw2iyrh wrote

Who said anything about a similar unit in the same neighborhood? I’m talking about a similar budget.

If you’ve got $2k/m in your budget for housing, you’ll be building more wealth by buying something within that budget rather than renting even if the house doesn’t appreciate in value.

1