Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Tay Zonday
@tayzonday
There is no American “housing crisis”— there’s a supply-hoarding crisis to rig local market prices above the liquidity of local buyer capital. The policy solution is simple: poison-pill tax all non-occupant-owned housing to force immediate sale to local buyers at actual market rates. Allowing unlimited non-local capital to supply-hoard vacant housing is simply anti-resident eugenics. Current residents are too poor, so replace them with richer ones— even if it causes widespread homelessness, forced migration and absurd energy costs for the displaced to commute. It’s as discriminatory as Federal Housing Administration redlining of black neighborhoods in the 1940s.
17 replies
20 recasts
189 reactions
lawrenceroman.eth
@lawrenceroman
Agree with you on first point, see link about Blackstone below but disagree on the policy solution, obviously the Blackstone article proves your point Owning a home can always be the American dream but it’s not for everyone, so you poison pill to force investors to sale to locals it’s a bit far fetch because you are assuming that most locals would afford to buy homes at market rates? that’s wrong. I don’t know if you have any experience or data in real estate development in distressed areas. There are a lot of distressed towns in America in need of private capital to turn them around. I worked in the design districts of Miami between 2008-2010, the Uber fancy neighborhood you see now took a lot of private investment to be what it is now. My generation Z daughter used to throw around the word “gentrification” as a negative until explain to her nobody would enjoy the Soho, Brooklyn or Bronx of the late 80s. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/blackstone-raised-rent-prices-double-115500983.html
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
Tay Zonday
@tayzonday
That’s a good question. I am confident that most locals could NOT afford to buy homes at inflated market rates. They could only afford to buy at corrected market rates— that reflect a fast sale price using available local owner capital. The investor class likes to believe that inflated market rates which actually depend on profound public subsidy of oligarchy are “natural.” History shows that American public subsidy of private markets is welcome to build the wealth of dominant groups and then outrageous for the marginalized. Take the GI bill that subsidized wealth-building for white World War II vets. The highway system built under Eisenhower’s 90% top marginal Federal income tax let these whites buy suburban homes. Public housing built for blacks in inner cities did not get the same per-capita subsidies in the 1950s. By the lower-tax 1980s when blacks complained about low family wealth, Reagan won by calling them welfare-queens and crack addicts with a “cultural” poverty problem.
2 replies
0 recast
5 reactions
lawrenceroman.eth
@lawrenceroman
Negative ghost rider, if u factor in digital nomads and gen Z appetite for traveling and preferring to rent to not being tied up to a place, what you are suggesting wouldn’t fly in any zip codes in USA. And “Corrected market rates” really? I don’t have the deep historical knowledge you possessed but I have boots on the ground (construction boots) in distressed markets in the northeast, where towns need private investors to deal with distressed properties that have been sitting empty some for years because of lack of investment. not all zip codes are the same, the pricey ones get all the attention, while the distressed get ignored. Case in point: Shamokin, PA distressed coal mine town, u should have seen the list of distressed properties in that town last summer. As investors We are doing our best to support that local economy. https://www.newsitem.com/news/local/shamokin-got-2-7-million-to-give-independence-st-a-makeover-heres-where-the-project/article_eb5fd70e-5b4b-11ef-90f3-5738bf25e9c4.html
3 replies
0 recast
3 reactions
Tay Zonday
@tayzonday
This is valid criticism of my history-focused analyses. There’s an endless rabbit-hole tracing present-day misery back to unfair treatment and undeserved favor. @balajis.eth and others colloquialize “grievance studies” and “offense archaeology” as emergent from opaque (and thus non-falsifiable) histories of pre-blockchain life. The residents of Shamokin aren’t rising up in vengeance against the post-Keynesian, post-protectionist Chicago School economics that screwed rural America. They aren’t confiscating the homes of Carter and Reagan administration officials who embraced neoliberalism that sent their jobs abroad. They want to stay out of the rain without inhaling lead paint and asbestos. They have human needs. Do they *deserve* reparation for historical wrong? Probably. Thats fair policy talk. But when you or anyone else shows up with money to build and renovate, it changes lives on the front lines. A drop of moral right today is more tangible than a gallon of yesterday’s wrongs.
2 replies
0 recast
3 reactions
Sterling Schuyler
@sterschuyler
100 $DEGEN
2 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
Weh
@mintpossum
You cannot assume there is a “demand to rent” when most people are fundamentally locked out of buying when the minimum household income to buy is now six figures in most of the US, and most cities actively suppress any more than three adults in a household or non-marital group buying. I would fucking love to stay in the same place at least two years but that has never been an option I could plan on between rent hikes, no income growth, and landlords selling out to black rock. I am on the fringes and have had to negotiate terms with increasingly rare private landlords because companies don’t let you rent with less than 3x income in exchange for a larger deposit or proof of unusual levels of financial responsibility like savings or no car payment.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
