Say it with me: ADUs drive housing prices UP not down
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
] Who is responsible for sorting out issues with having multiple rental dwelling units on the same property, maybe in the same structure? An investor management company? |
Anonymous
|
I get the arguments in favor of ADUs on this thread and elsewhere and am generally in favor of more density and more housing.
BUT I have personally observed OP's point in practice. I live in a neighborhood with rising housing costs, but not rising as rapidly as some nearby areas do to school quality. We own a condo here. We've seen two single family homes near out condo put in ADUs in the last few years (both installed by developers who had bought and renovated the properties). Neither of those ADUs is being used as a long term rental -- both are used as AirBnBs or in-law units. The installation of those ADUs raised the sale prices of those two properties exponentially. Without the ADUs, even with the full renovations, they would have goon for around 850-950k. With the ADUs, they both went for over 1.2m. Those are the highest sale prices in our neighborhood by a mile, even compared to SFHs that are larger than either of these. But it has not resulted in more housing, since the ADUs are not being used as housing. Instead, they are contributing to noise issues, parking concerns, and maybe even crime because of the transient nature of the AirBnB rental. So these ADUs hiked the average cost of buying a home in our neighborhood without improving housing availability for renters at all. Plus, they've done nothing at all to address the factor most depressing prices in our neighborhood -- the poor school, since both homes attracted investor/developer buyers, but no families with school age kids or likely to have them in a few years. It's not the panacea people think it is. I hate to say this because it's not actually good for MY property value, but the better move is to tear down those SFHs and put up multi-family housing, which would actually lower prices (including the value of my own condo) by creating more housing for people, and the people buying those condos are more likely to invest in local schools and other infrastructure than the AirBnB tenants or someone's ILs who are staying with them for a few months. |
Anonymous
| Sounds like it's AirBnB that's the problem, not the ADU. |
Anonymous
Many localities, including DC, restrict AirBnB to some extent, but there is little enforcement. |
Anonymous
Ok? So your neighbors invested in THEIR OWN property and increased the value. Would you also be complaining if they upgraded their kitchen and landscaping and added a bathroom to add value? And of course we already have restrictive short-term rental regs. |
Anonymous
Whoever the landlord is, just like with any other rental property. |
Anonymous
Sure, but ADUs represent a very good opportunity to expand housing and density without bringing in commercial landlords. If we're waving our magic wands and making ideal policy in this thread, why not ban investors from owning and operating them? I'd like to see both more housing and less profit motivation in housing construction. |
Anonymous
I'd like to get rid of all of the ways we subsidize homeownership and penalize renters, but in the real world, I don't support imposing residency requirements on property owners. |
Anonymous
|
ADUs will get massively more popular as Boomers age. Having a small ADU in your backyard for grandma will be such a boon to families with kids, worried about coordinating care for an elderly relative, etc. The Boomer relative will likely have the funds to pay for the building without a loan.
ADUs are going to become very critical to caring for our aging relatives, particularly when you see how much assisted living facilities charge ($10-20K per month). |
Anonymous
It's not a residency requirement on all property owners. It's a condition for renting out an ADU on your property. Again, if we're making up imaginary policy, why limit yourself to what you think is achievable in the real world? Completely agree with you on eliminating homeownership subsidies and penalizing renters; I also want developers, investors, commercial landlords and, generally "the market" to have less power in housing. (Which is why I recognize all my ideas are going to remain in the realm of made-up imaginary policy.) |
Anonymous
There is a #3. Your neighbors' homes just became more affordable because their home value will now reflect living next door to a SFH with another dwelling and more people in the backyard. All all things being equal, the next homebuyer will select a SFH, next door to other SFHs. Unless, they too want to put an ADU on their property. Pretty soon the whole street will have 2x the people, cars, trash, impact on schools, etc. Hard pass. |
Anonymous
So wait, do the ADUs raise property values or lower property values? They can't do both simultaneously. And what does "Hard pass" mean in this context? You don't want to live next door to a property with an ADU? Then you need to buy that property. Othherwise, not your property, not your decision. |
Anonymous
If you look at how multifamily rental properties and financed and taxed, you’ll find plenty of subsidies. They benefit landlords (the other homeowners), not renters. I’d be for eliminating the landlord and homeowner subsidies and lowering tax rates for everyone. |
Anonymous
It's not your deciion either. I can't wait until nothing changes and the builders laugh themselves to the bank. This does NOTHING except put oney in their pocket. Look at Minnesota. But, whatever. You'll see. |
Anonymous
| I don’t think driving prices down is the point of ADU’s. Most people who need help with homes need help with closing and up front costs. |