Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Ok-Title-270 t1_j7nyhec wrote

Just let the developers build. That's it, they'll fill the market need if government gets out of the way

−7

BudsKind802 t1_j7o5yxt wrote

It's simple to say that regulation is stopping more housing stock from being built. It's also not based in reality.

Developers are going to build what makes them the most money, which are high end single family homes. Even building an extra 500 homes without regulation isn't going to help do anything but create more opportunities for out of state investors and pad developers' pockets, which is exactly why they're the biggest proponents of deregulation.

17

Ok-Title-270 t1_j7p7kpt wrote

They'll build what the market demands. Maybe the market also needs more high end homes and those make the most so they'd be built first, however there's only so many people who can pay for those so that market would become saturated. You can make money building more affordable housing too so they'd do that also

−2

Jerry_Williams69 t1_j7o5uhw wrote

Developers will just make McMansions that nobody can afford if left to their own devices. There has to be some guidelines.

11

alienwarezftw t1_j7onci9 wrote

Developers will also suck you into a crap hoa where you own nothing.

10

Jerry_Williams69 t1_j7p7v7m wrote

HOAs are good for multi-family housing like condos. Pretty lame for single family homes

0

alienwarezftw t1_j7pw2c8 wrote

HOAs are awful for anyone and very predatory please don’t make others think that’s it is somehow good at all

5

Jerry_Williams69 t1_j7pxclu wrote

Sorry you had a bad experience. Like I said, they are good for multi-unit housing. Dues go towards fixing shared exterior structures like roofs, siding, garage doors, gutters, etc. Dues also cover maintenance of shared yards, parking lots, car ports, trash removal, etc.

−1

alienwarezftw t1_j7pydlf wrote

I didn’t have a bad experience in saying in general they are not good. They may have good intentions but money, greed, and companies create awful situations for people who can’t get out of their purchased condos

3

goldenlight18 t1_j7pi35g wrote

https://www.sevendaysvt.com/vermont/obstruction-zone-how-vermonts-land-use-regulations-impede-new-development-and-complicate-the-states-housing-crisis/Content?oid=35279122

Act 250 actually has discouraged good growth and made McMansions about the only thing you can build because a Mcmansion does not immediately trigger Act 250 or zoning issues... a few might but even then its a low barrier to clear because its one home instead of multiple.

2

Jerry_Williams69 t1_j7plfmt wrote

OK, but that is just part of the problem. I come from a part of the country without Act 250. All developers built there were McMansions because they generate large profit margins and people will buy them (often at their own financial peril). Removing Act 250 will just result in more sprawling overpriced McMansion developments because that is all developers will build. The free market doesn't want to build affordable housing.

3

GaleTheThird t1_j7pm92d wrote

> Developers will just make McMansions that nobody can afford if left to their own devices.

If no one could afford them, no one would build them. Instead the people who can afford those McMansions will just be outbidding everyone on the older housing stock that already exists

1

Jerry_Williams69 t1_j7puzyd wrote

That's the thing though. Some people can afford the McMansions, they want the McMansions, and they will buy the McMansions. Can't build enough of them in Vermont to saturate the market for them. Turning the free market lose will do nothing for the people who need the most help in this situation.

6

Ok-Title-270 t1_j7p7sxr wrote

Nope, let them build those until it's no longer profitable (wouldn't be long in VT) then they'll move on to other housing types. The solution to a problem caused by government regulations is not more/different government regulations

−2

Jerry_Williams69 t1_j7p8slo wrote

That is a delusional outlook. Regulations/government are not the only cause of the housing situation. Big developers will just keep building McMansions that will get bought by investors to become high prices rentals. When was the last time you saw a development of affordable single family homes anywhere in the USA? The free market has not made affordable housing for decades.

6

Ok-Title-270 t1_j7plfq5 wrote

>Big developers will just keep building McMansions that will get bought by investors to become high prices rentals

That only happens until there's not enough people with enough money to rent or buy them. The last time I saw affordable rentals being built by developers was last year in Gainesville Florida where housing is significantly less expensive than Vermont and there is more supply than demand

2

Jerry_Williams69 t1_j7plq0w wrote

We haven't reached that saturation point. Not even close. Nobody learned anything from the 2008 meltdown. Adjustable rate mortgages are even making a comeback.

How does the average income in Gainesville compare to the price of that "affordable" housing? Might not be affordable to the locals.

3

Ok-Title-270 t1_j7qu4au wrote

>We haven't reached that saturation point. Not even close.

Exactly, my point is we need to allow more building to occur if we want to drive down housing costs on the long term.

>How does the average income in Gainesville compare to the price of that "affordable" housing? Might not be affordable to the locals.

It's a university town with a huge hospital system supplying many good paying jobs

0

Jerry_Williams69 t1_j7qup4b wrote

"It's a university town with a huge hospital system supplying many good paying jobs"

So? "Good paying" is relative to the region.

We will not hit a McMansion saturation point in Vermont before a large portion of the population is crushed and forced out of the state. Even then, it may never happen. You place too much faith in the free market.

3

Ok-Title-270 t1_j7qvygo wrote

>So? "Good paying" is relative to the region.

There's no housing crisis there so clearly it's working much better than here. You can rent a decent apartment there for 1/2 of what it would cost in Burlington, if you can even find one.

>We will not hit a McMansion saturation point in Vermont before a large portion of the population is crushed and forced out of the state. Even then, it may never happen. You place too much faith in the free market

You place too much faith in the government, which has never managed a housing market well. There's really not that many people who can afford a mcmansion in this state so I think it would shake out pretty quickly

0

Jerry_Williams69 t1_j7qzgjx wrote

I never said I put my faith in the government. I just said don't trust the free market and the people/companies who dominate it. Especially not in this late stage of capitalism we are in. It is not an either/or situation.

I don't know enough about Gainesville to determine if you are actually making a point or not. Low cost of living and available housing could point to the area being undesirable as much as being better run. That's why I was asking about wages and cost of living. Detroit has a low cost of living and available housing too.

2

Ok-Title-270 t1_j7r0rzg wrote

>I never said I put my faith in the government

Then why do you want them to control everything?

I don't know the intricacies of VT vs Gainesville incomes etc but my point is I lived there and there's readily available multi unit housing for prices that residents can afford, and there's not a bunch of people desperately looking for housing they can barely afford

1

Jerry_Williams69 t1_j7r17r4 wrote

Never said that. Is it really that binary for you? Solutions need to be collaborative in Vermont's case. Neither the free market alone or the government alone can solve this puzzle.

2

Ok-Title-270 t1_j7smtvf wrote

We've seen lots of government already and it's failed. Why would more work better?

1

SomeConstructionGuy t1_j7p8g5y wrote

This is not accurate. The rental management market has been massively consolidated over the last 10-20 years. Statistically we don’t need that much more housing. But we do need prices to reflect costs, not be a conduit for maximum profit.

1

Ok-Title-270 t1_j7plno2 wrote

So you're telling me that when there's more abundance of something the price doesn't go down? Also nothing in our economy reflects cost, it's all about profit.

2

BudsKind802 t1_j7q8avr wrote

Unlike what you may have learned in econ 101, the "free market" doesn't exist. Instead the market is unpredictable and tends to favor the rich. They just wave that off as externalities, but ultimately durable goods markets behave differently than widget markets.

3

SomeConstructionGuy t1_j7pm79x wrote

I’m telling you that adding more supply doesn’t necessary lower costs when the price is controlled by what is essentially a cartel.

1

Ok-Title-270 t1_j7qtplq wrote

A Vermont housing cartel?

1

SomeConstructionGuy t1_j7s95je wrote

No. See the comment with sources. Read.

1

Ok-Title-270 t1_j7sm1l8 wrote

No thanks

0

SomeConstructionGuy t1_j7tx18m wrote

If you don’t want to learn then don’t ask.

It’s a thing nationally as well over half of corporate owned rentals are managed by one software. They can and do inflate prices which drags up all rental prices nationally.

3

Ok-Title-270 t1_j7ugu2j wrote

And that constitutes a cartel in your mind?

1

SomeConstructionGuy t1_j7uhf91 wrote

“an association of manufacturers or suppliers with the purpose of maintaining prices at a high level and restricting competition.”

Yes. Many corporate property owners using common software to set prices enabling prices to be artificially inflated certainly looks like a cartel.

Do you disagree? And if so why?

3

Ok-Title-270 t1_j81s8k3 wrote

I disagree because it's not that centralized and additionally is only able to happen because of government intervention

1