Politicians and interest groups from across the ideological spectrum are pushing for changes to boost housing construction in areas where people want to live.
What in the world are you talking about? Yes the whole point is that people will be able to buy homes and turn them into apartments, that’s the outcome we’re looking for. Where you’re going wrong is not realizing that the apartments will be less expensive and more numerous than the houses they’re replacing. Thus it’ll be easier for people looking to buy to afford one of them than a full house, and easier to find a place to rent if you can’t afford or don’t want to purchase.
It’s sort of a tautological statement. Obviously an apartment building on the site of what used to be a single house will produce more than one apartment. And obviously an apartment in that building will not be as expensive to buy or rent as a full house next door sitting on as much land as the whole apartment building. It’s not a trick, just real life.
Ok, I’ll give you that two living spaces are more than one space. That’s no denying that.
But, these house owners are going to want to turn a profit, right?
I don’t know about where you live, but my monthly mortgage on a 5 bedroom house is less than the average rent for a two bedroom rental apartment in the same area.
According to your “reality” that can’t be possible, but sure as shit, that’s how it is. Landlords spend as little as possible to get the place up to code, cut corners on maintenance and repairs, and charge enough that they can quit their day jobs, and let the tenants pay their bills.
Like I said, I’d love to believe that nobody would do what I’m describing, but greedy people still exist, and they do so by exploiting those around them.
You’re comparing apples to oranges with your monthly mortgage and rent rates, you’ve got to compare purchase prices to purchase prices and rents to rents.
But you said a half house rental would cost less than buying a whole house. Are we comparing the two or not?
I’ve said why I don’t like it, and you don’t have to agree. Neither of us can be proven right until the new rule is implemented.
I’m betting that people will take advantage of the changes and that middle to low income families will, at best, not see a benefit, and, at worst, have lower-quality more expensive options than before.
You can bet on everybody graciously opening up part of their house and charging a fair rate to cover an equivalent portion of their own expenses.
an apartment in that building will not be as expensive to buy or rent as a full house next door sitting on as much land as the whole apartment building
As in the price of the apartment sells for will be lower than the price the house next door sells for, and the price you can get for renting the apartment will be less than the price you can get for renting the house. The relationship between rents and sale price in the same place are more complicated, especially if you’re comparing an existing mortgage that followed from a sale years ago in a different housing market.
the whole point is that people will be able to buy homes and turn them into apartments, that’s the outcome we’re looking for
I don’t support that and it would do nothing to improve conditions. Creating a middleman is useless
Rampant landlordism is a driving factor for why things are as bad as they are. Such landlords contribute nothing to housing supply. More dense government owned affordable housing for purchase is the solution, not private landlordism
A landlord who just buys a property and rents it out is doing nothing for the housing supply but obviously a developer that buys a house and turns it into an apartment building is increasing the housing supply regardless of whether they rent the apartments or sell them or whatever.
Not sure what you mean by government owned housing available for purchase - surely it’s either government owned or being purchased? A big government house building program would be fantastic, but that’s no reason to support keeping restrictions on also helpful private house building.
What in the world are you talking about? Yes the whole point is that people will be able to buy homes and turn them into apartments, that’s the outcome we’re looking for. Where you’re going wrong is not realizing that the apartments will be less expensive and more numerous than the houses they’re replacing. Thus it’ll be easier for people looking to buy to afford one of them than a full house, and easier to find a place to rent if you can’t afford or don’t want to purchase.
If someone could trick me into believing that, I would probably support it.
It’s sort of a tautological statement. Obviously an apartment building on the site of what used to be a single house will produce more than one apartment. And obviously an apartment in that building will not be as expensive to buy or rent as a full house next door sitting on as much land as the whole apartment building. It’s not a trick, just real life.
Ok, I’ll give you that two living spaces are more than one space. That’s no denying that.
But, these house owners are going to want to turn a profit, right?
I don’t know about where you live, but my monthly mortgage on a 5 bedroom house is less than the average rent for a two bedroom rental apartment in the same area.
According to your “reality” that can’t be possible, but sure as shit, that’s how it is. Landlords spend as little as possible to get the place up to code, cut corners on maintenance and repairs, and charge enough that they can quit their day jobs, and let the tenants pay their bills.
Like I said, I’d love to believe that nobody would do what I’m describing, but greedy people still exist, and they do so by exploiting those around them.
You’re comparing apples to oranges with your monthly mortgage and rent rates, you’ve got to compare purchase prices to purchase prices and rents to rents.
But you said a half house rental would cost less than buying a whole house. Are we comparing the two or not?
I’ve said why I don’t like it, and you don’t have to agree. Neither of us can be proven right until the new rule is implemented.
I’m betting that people will take advantage of the changes and that middle to low income families will, at best, not see a benefit, and, at worst, have lower-quality more expensive options than before.
You can bet on everybody graciously opening up part of their house and charging a fair rate to cover an equivalent portion of their own expenses.
I said the following:
As in the price of the apartment sells for will be lower than the price the house next door sells for, and the price you can get for renting the apartment will be less than the price you can get for renting the house. The relationship between rents and sale price in the same place are more complicated, especially if you’re comparing an existing mortgage that followed from a sale years ago in a different housing market.
Ok
I don’t support that and it would do nothing to improve conditions. Creating a middleman is useless
Rampant landlordism is a driving factor for why things are as bad as they are. Such landlords contribute nothing to housing supply. More dense government owned affordable housing for purchase is the solution, not private landlordism
A landlord who just buys a property and rents it out is doing nothing for the housing supply but obviously a developer that buys a house and turns it into an apartment building is increasing the housing supply regardless of whether they rent the apartments or sell them or whatever.
Not sure what you mean by government owned housing available for purchase - surely it’s either government owned or being purchased? A big government house building program would be fantastic, but that’s no reason to support keeping restrictions on also helpful private house building.