6 ms·
Isn't the solution just to take the market out of real estate? At the individual-homeowner level, a lot of NIMBYism, HOA activity, and other toxic activity is
by hakfoo 3mo ago
Isn't the solution just to take the market out of real estate?
At the individual-homeowner level, a lot of NIMBYism, HOA activity, and other toxic activity is grounded in "I have $400k of equity sunk into this square of land and it's the only meaningful asset I have for my increasingly oncoming retirement."
There are probably plenty of people who are subconsciously self-sabotaging due to that-- they may personally prefer a denser neighbourhood or more mixed-use facilities, but that Zillow number is blinking in their mind at the same time.
If the real estate were nationalized and people were leasing it from a state-owned trust, at basically its cost of operation (maintenance and amortized construction costs), it would free up a lot of resident income for other use or investment opportunities, and make a lot of changes less threatening to residents. (ISTR claims that rents in the USSR were on the order of 5% of income, and this when 30% or less was still a feasible story in the US)
- cousin_it 3mo agoIf people can move freely, and there's no price mechanism to allocate housing and construction, there will be problems. So "taking the market out of real estate" is a very big ask. In the USSR you couldn't freely move to another city, you needed to get government approval on the basis of a job change. People complained about this registration system all the time.
- inigyou 3mo agoThere's still a cost. Cost of living in the most popular places is that they're slums, because everyone is building everything. The slum factor will cancel out whatever was making them popular.
- inigyou 3mo agoYes it is, but history has proven the state can't be trusted to do better either.