Yimby: “We should build more houses to address the housing crisis.”
Leftist: “So people can live in them at-cost, right?”
Yimby: putting on his landlord hat
Leftist: “… Right?”
Unfortunately I think its unrealistic to hope for something that doesn’t take profits into consideration as things stand now. Also, while I agree rents have gone FAAARRRRRR beyond any practical purposes, some people do forget “at cost” includes extra to cover maintenance and taxes.
some people do forget “at cost” includes extra to cover maintenance and taxes.
Taxes are a function of property value. One of the more ugly moral hazards of the last few decades has been municipal governments hungrily consuming the enormous tax windfalls of exploding property prices while residents are forced to pick up the tab for more and more privatized municipal services.
The same house jumping from $150k to $600k doesn’t translate into roads that are 4x nicer or drainage 4x better managed or schools 4x more well-funded. It just floods into the pockets of municipal cronies and private contractors, for mayoral vanity projects. Selling property “at-cost” would keep the tax rates down. But high ranking city officials don’t want cheap land in their city. That cuts into their slush funds.
So we see city officials tacitly encourage these exploding housing costs, while residents are priced out of homes they could have easily afforded even during the 2008 housing peak.
I dont disagree but that doesn’t change the fact that A- taxes are a thing and therefore a cost that has to be factored in, and B- Even if we fix the tax system it would still be a necessity.
Fixing broken systems is important and WOULD help people find housing, but arguing for utopia or bust is only going to let things get worse as you bicker about the details of municipal spending (which again I do agree on but we ALSO need to work within the system we have now to help people for whom this isn’t theoretical internet banter…)
