The Daily episode on the housing crisis

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Did they bother to address the fact that housing has become commoditized thanks to corporations, hedge funds, and regular people like you and me buying multiple homes and renting them out (whether as airbnbs or more traditional rental properties)? Because that’s the real culprit. Hedge funds and corporations own entire neighborhoods in certain areas. They literally come in a buy up nearly an entire new development and then have the power to set the new fair market value.

What about immigration?

What about foreign nationals who live abroad but buy homes in the US for investment purposes? ICYMI: Canada realized this was ruining their housing market and has taken steps to address it. Too little too late once people and corporations own property, but at least they got the memo.

Building more affordable housing is important, but it’s an exercise in futility unless there are strict restrictions on who can buy the housing and who must actually live there. The MoCo MPDU approach is one example (not perfect, but better than nothing).

Foreign buyers make up 2-3% of sales. And that is just non U.S. citizens. A significant number of them hold geeen cards and live in their houses. Largely it’s very high end luxury housing that they are buying. It doesn’t effect any real estate market remotely
Near the DMV.

https://www.nar.realtor/research-and-statistics/research-reports/international-transactions-in-u-s-residential-real-estate

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Solutions to "crisis":

-- Ban foreign ownership of real estate
-- Eliminate all federal tax deductions on homes that aren't people's primary residences

Once you realize that our country is set up to benefit corporations and the wealthy, you'll realize that the "crisis" is intentional and works to their benefit.

Which federal tax deductions do you think apply to real estate that isn’t your primary residence?

[Anonymous]

https://www.thesling.org/are-hedge-funds-and-private-equity-firms-driving-up-the-cost-of-housing-2/

Good background on the impact of hedge funds and investors screwing up the housing market.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no housing crisis, there is only an entitlement crisis. People expect houses to be way larger than before, they want fancy kitchens, his and hers closets, a separate bedroom for each child. Expectations have become completely detached from what the average person can realistically afford. This is a giant ruse by developers and the real estate lobby.

This is wrong because we actively want a small starter home and don't care about big closets or a bunch of bathrooms or a big kitchen. We are fine with something 1200-1600 ft and don't need it to be updated. But what I'm describing will cost you 500-600k in the DC area. There are a handful of places where you can get it for under 500k but they have horrible schools and we want at least okay schools.

The problem is that houses like that haven't been built in 30 or more years builders can make a lot more off high end, huge homes). The ones that are out there get gobbled up by developers who will tear them down and replace with a 1.5m new build. And the demand for land by these developers drives up the price across the board. If you can even get one of these houses at all-- lots of people coming in with all cash offers or willing to waive contingencies because they intend to tear it down anyway.

So yeah actually there is a housing shortage that is unrelated to some people wanting extravagant houses that are also magically cheap.

You are living in fantasy land. It's not even possible to build a new house that is 1600 sq feet for under 500k anymore in an area like DC. Even if the land were free you would not be able to find someone to build you a house for this price, (including site prep). Also, the median household income in the DC metro area is high enough to afford something that cost 500-600k, so it is not realistic to make a below average income for this area and expect to be able to afford to live in a the best school district.

Right which is why we need to build more high density housing that makes a home of that size actually affordable. If builders aren't going to produce smaller starter homes as SFHs then we need more townhomes and condos that families can afford.

Because guess what -- "median household income" means that a huge number of people in this area make less than that. So if the only housing available to families in the area costs more than they can afford then you have a housing problem. And if you tell all those people to go move somewhere cheaper then who will you get to do all the many many jobs that pay below the median for the area.

It kind of sounds like you are the one who is living in a fantasyland. Also the prior post was a direct response to someone saying "well the problem is that everyone wants a giant new build with huge closets and luxury finishes" and here is someone saying "actually no I just want a starter home I can actually afford the mortgage on with my actual salary" and your respones is "well that's a fantasy you can't have that." Right. That's precisely the issue -- people can't even afford run down smaller older houses. So where do you propose they live.

[Anonymous]

https://www.blankrome.com/publications/how-recent-laws-affect-foreign-purchase-us-real-estate

The US has cracked down on foreign nationals and foreign investors purchasing real estate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.blankrome.com/publications/how-recent-laws-affect-foreign-purchase-us-real-estate

The US has cracked down on foreign nationals and foreign investors purchasing real estate.

This is really limited and not really "cracking down." It largely relates to limiting the ability of foreign nationals and investors from purchasing land near military bases or utility infrastructure. And even that is limited and in some cases just means the government can review the sale before closing to ensure it doesn't pose a security threat.

It has pretty much nothing to do with the impact of foreign nationals buying up residential homes as investments. That's a separate issue that is not touched on by any of these provisions which are all about national security.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no housing crisis, there is only an entitlement crisis. People expect houses to be way larger than before, they want fancy kitchens, his and hers closets, a separate bedroom for each child. Expectations have become completely detached from what the average person can realistically afford. This is a giant ruse by developers and the real estate lobby.

This is wrong because we actively want a small starter home and don't care about big closets or a bunch of bathrooms or a big kitchen. We are fine with something 1200-1600 ft and don't need it to be updated. But what I'm describing will cost you 500-600k in the DC area. There are a handful of places where you can get it for under 500k but they have horrible schools and we want at least okay schools.

The problem is that houses like that haven't been built in 30 or more years builders can make a lot more off high end, huge homes). The ones that are out there get gobbled up by developers who will tear them down and replace with a 1.5m new build. And the demand for land by these developers drives up the price across the board. If you can even get one of these houses at all-- lots of people coming in with all cash offers or willing to waive contingencies because they intend to tear it down anyway.

So yeah actually there is a housing shortage that is unrelated to some people wanting extravagant houses that are also magically cheap.

You are living in fantasy land. It's not even possible to build a new house that is 1600 sq feet for under 500k anymore in an area like DC. Even if the land were free you would not be able to find someone to build you a house for this price, (including site prep). Also, the median household income in the DC metro area is high enough to afford something that cost 500-600k, so it is not realistic to make a below average income for this area and expect to be able to afford to live in a the best school district.

The average cost in the US is $150/square foot, so $240k for 1600 square feet.

When you say an area like DC…do you really mean DC…or are you including say Germantown or somewhere in Loudon?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did they bother to address the fact that housing has become commoditized thanks to corporations, hedge funds, and regular people like you and me buying multiple homes and renting them out (whether as airbnbs or more traditional rental properties)? Because that’s the real culprit. Hedge funds and corporations own entire neighborhoods in certain areas. They literally come in a buy up nearly an entire new development and then have the power to set the new fair market value.

What about immigration?

What about foreign nationals who live abroad but buy homes in the US for investment purposes? ICYMI: Canada realized this was ruining their housing market and has taken steps to address it. Too little too late once people and corporations own property, but at least they got the memo.

Building more affordable housing is important, but it’s an exercise in futility unless there are strict restrictions on who can buy the housing and who must actually live there. The MoCo MPDU approach is one example (not perfect, but better than nothing).

They touched on the commoditization issue but it wasn't the focus. I agree I would have liked to hear more on this. Especially because their focus was on markets that recently had very affordable housing (they do a deep dive into Kalamazoo) but have recently seen a huge run up in housing costs as people from other places have started entering those housing markets. The show makes it sound like it's mostly people moving to these markets but as someone who knows a lot of people who work in real estate development I'm pretty confident that a lot of the people buying up housing in this market are investors who do not and will never live there.

Like they interview a couple in Kalamazoo who were displaced when the duplex where they were renting a unit was sold. They ultimately find housing but it is more than double what they'd been paying because they are forced into a new build rental (modular home I think) and they can't find anything like the older rental they'd been living in. This was a dual-income couple with decent working class jobs and now most of their income is going to housing and they can't save and have to watch every penny. It's depressing.

But they don't talk about who bought the duplex. Sure it might have been a family moving from Detroit who bought it to live in and rent the extra unit. But I think odds are good it's a real estate investor who bought it and will do a cheap flip with "luxury look" finishes and then rent it out for 3-4x the prior rent. Or turn it into an Airbnb. Because you see that a lot.

I think most people are aware that speculators and investors started buying up properties in the Dallas metro area before it became hot. They bought multiple SFHs and practically entire neighborhoods @$200k and now thanks to their “investments” they drove the housing market to a frenzy where you must be an all cash buyer prepared to pay $600-800k+ for the basic 3 bdrm sfh. Entire neighborhoods have been flipped to rentals mostly owned by corporations, hedge funds, and foreign investors (mostly Asian).

Once the system has been commoditized, it’s broken and nearly impossible to fix. Building more housing won’t fix the problem since the same investors are best positioned to pay cash immediately.

The pp who said we need to ban foreign investors and dump the tax credits isn’t going far enough. It won’t work. The foreigners will set up shell companies and the reality is the tax credits aren’t fueling the individual investors—it’s quite lucrative to generate income from rentals and periodic flips or sales.

Switching gears: plopping duplexes into established neighborhoods like MoCo is proposing won’t fix the problem either.

The Feds are perhaps the only employer equipped to move the needle by shifting offices to lower-density cities/states to attract people away from the major metro areas. Better yet: force the Amazon’s of the world to plant roots in Kalamazoo instead of NoVA.

Agree with many of the points made here but strong disagree with the conclusion. There is a long literature in economics demonstrating that agglomeration happens because people are more productive when they are in proximity to each other. The evidence also suggests that, on net, they prefer the amenities of large high cost metro areas. For example, some of the latest research shows not only that educated workers are more productive in cities, but also that the increase in housing costs more than swallows up their wage gains. This is another way of saying "even with lower salaries in <lower cost smaller city>, I could buy a nicer house there, but I choose to live in <high cost city> because I like _____." Lots of ways people fill in that blank: things to do, places to eat, hobbies, professional networks, larger dating pools, etc.

Pushing firms and industries to de-agglomerate would be very costly, because we would lose the productivity gains from clustering people together. And, even if de-agglomerating successfully reduced housing costs as a % of income, many people would be worse off, because they would lose all the things that they were filling in the blank above with before.

We need to build more housing in our high-wage metro areas, and that's only going to happen when we either find better ways to incentivize municipalities to pull their weight in the housing market, or when we take some amount of control from them altogether.

Disagree. Strongly.

That premise assumes everyone must live near a Tier 1 city.

The reality is we now have ghost towns surrounding Tier 2 and 3 cities that desperately need revitalization.

I’m looking at this through the lens of the greater good and the people living in under-resourced communities.

Yes, people obviously prefer to live in places like the dc metro area where we have access to perhaps the best healthcare in the nation… but the solution isn’t to build more housing here. Rather, the solution is to revitalize and invest in other areas to make them more desirable. The Dallas metro area is a prime example…look at Frisco. If you build it, they will come. Now do that in Detroit, Kalamazoo, Knoxville, etc.

You think you understand the issue, but you have it backwards, and your examples are wild. Dallas area has been growing like wildfire for 70 years because people like warm weather areas, and zoning controls in Texas are weak compared to most other places. It was also driven by oil/gas money for a generation. People didn't just go there for no reason- it was because there were jobs.

The article is literally about Kalamazoo and how even there they are having issues because of limited supply. Knoxville is kind of a wild example- it's a booming college town that has a huge jobs magnet that is already pushing up the cost of housing considerably.

Developers want to make money and decrease risk. They follow job growth, not the other way around. The reason rural areas are depopulating is because agricultural work has been becoming more mechanized for the last 130 years.

The explosion in Dallas (and Frisco and random even far out burbs) is most certainly not oil related—or warm weather related. The housing prices in far flung burbs have exploded in the last few years. Success breeds success, but entire new sfh neighborhoods are being snatched up by private equity investors, etc.

I’m not fixated on developers; rather, I’m focused on the investors who have destroyed housing markets across the country. More housing doesn’t fix the problem precisely because individual buyers can’t compete with private equity firms, hedge funds, and even regular investors who operate in cash.

Speculators skewed the housing market in the RGV, betting on Elon Musk’s venture bringing jobs. The jobs never came but the housing market was screwed up nonetheless.

I know these large investors are easy bogeymen, but they are not driving the market anywhere.

https://www.rentalincomeadvisors.com/blog/hedge-funds-single-family-homes

If you lived in the Dallas metro area and were stuck renting for years, you’d understand who owns what. And if your realtor friends in the area disclosed what they’ve been dealing with, you would understand.

Ever seen an entire new sfh neighborhood bought by a single investment group to flip to rentals? It’s happening.

Also happening in a huge way in Charlotte. If anyone is interested in the granular finance aspects of this, there was an article in the WSJ within the last year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are plenty of affordable areas of the country to live.

I think you are missing the point. There was an article recently about some random town in Michigan…probably an affordable area in your eyes.

Well, the median price has doubled in just the last 5 years because of people selling from high cost area and moving there. Great for them, but now the locals are priced out.

Now they have a homeless problem…mainly due to local jobs not paying enough and rents increasing as much as owning.

It cascades.

Then these priced-out people need to move to an even cheaper town/city/zip code /state. Their inertia and lack of hustle is not a “crisis.”

There are vast, vast swaths of the United States that have plenty of homes and these do overlap with adequate jobs.

Domestic migration is a tradition in the US, or it used to be.

If your rent goes up to the point you can’t afford it, and you have no specialized skills keeping you tied to, say, semi-coastal Maine, then you need to move inland. Or to upstate NY. Or Iowa.

All of these places are looking for certified nursing assistants and have low rent options. You’re not entitled to Camden or Knoxville.

Great...list 5 of them for us. The adequate jobs part needs to support your locations.

Look at small cities in Nebraksa (unemployment 2.7%) and North Dakota (unemployment 2.3%) to start. Sioux Falls SD (1.6%) or Rapid City SD (1.8%)

I absolutely, positively guarantee that an able bodied adult who takes a job in an agricultural processing plant or physical rehabilitation facility in these towns/ cities will earn enough to cover rent and utilities and a used car+insurance in the geographic area where they work.

Renovated 1-bedrooms in Sioux Falls SD rent for about $1200 inc. utilities. A no-skill-required job in logistics WITH health benefits pays $22/hr. or $3500/ month. Construction pays $31/ hr or $4900 month, again with health insurance. The no-skill nursing assistant job pays $22/hr.

So if a couple take jobs as a nursing assistant and logistics when they move to Sioux Falls, they will gross $7000 a month. Which will easily cover their 1-bed apartment with granite and a pool ($1200), 2 car payments on a couple of very reliable 2021 Toyota Corollas ($375 x 2 = 700), car insurance and groceries and gas.

This assumes married filing jointly.

There are cities like this all over the country, actually. They are in places that Amherst-educated DCUMer Caitlin would never personally consider for herself, but they are readily available for the low/un-skilled guy languishing on the outskirts of DMV who claims he "can't afford" to live here.

[Anonymous]

More people should be talking about schools. That’s the real reason people oppose apartments. We had an apartment complex built near my house. Every single year since my school has been a failing title one school. So many resources are poured in but nothing budges the scores. It’s hard to be pro density when it hurts schools so badly and of course there’s always the effect on house values nearby (which is only a minor inconvenience to me but neighbors are very upset about decking house values due to schools). It would be really nice to have magnet schools or special classes for kids on grade level or above.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no housing crisis, there is only an entitlement crisis. People expect houses to be way larger than before, they want fancy kitchens, his and hers closets, a separate bedroom for each child. Expectations have become completely detached from what the average person can realistically afford. This is a giant ruse by developers and the real estate lobby.

This is wrong because we actively want a small starter home and don't care about big closets or a bunch of bathrooms or a big kitchen. We are fine with something 1200-1600 ft and don't need it to be updated. But what I'm describing will cost you 500-600k in the DC area. There are a handful of places where you can get it for under 500k but they have horrible schools and we want at least okay schools.

The problem is that houses like that haven't been built in 30 or more years builders can make a lot more off high end, huge homes). The ones that are out there get gobbled up by developers who will tear them down and replace with a 1.5m new build. And the demand for land by these developers drives up the price across the board. If you can even get one of these houses at all-- lots of people coming in with all cash offers or willing to waive contingencies because they intend to tear it down anyway.

So yeah actually there is a housing shortage that is unrelated to some people wanting extravagant houses that are also magically cheap.

Time to move to Topeka! Unless you or your spouse works onsite at Langley or State, then yes, you actually can transfer your skill set to a state capital in a lower cost state. Even if you're a fed or work for an adorable NGO currently. Any state capital will offer jobs appropriate for a classic DC white collar professional. Environmental regulation, combating sex trafficking, cyber security, mass transit engineer project manager at DOT ...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are plenty of affordable areas of the country to live.

I think you are missing the point. There was an article recently about some random town in Michigan…probably an affordable area in your eyes.

Well, the median price has doubled in just the last 5 years because of people selling from high cost area and moving there. Great for them, but now the locals are priced out.

Now they have a homeless problem…mainly due to local jobs not paying enough and rents increasing as much as owning.

It cascades.

Then these priced-out people need to move to an even cheaper town/city/zip code /state. Their inertia and lack of hustle is not a “crisis.”

There are vast, vast swaths of the United States that have plenty of homes and these do overlap with adequate jobs.

Domestic migration is a tradition in the US, or it used to be.

If your rent goes up to the point you can’t afford it, and you have no specialized skills keeping you tied to, say, semi-coastal Maine, then you need to move inland. Or to upstate NY. Or Iowa.

All of these places are looking for certified nursing assistants and have low rent options. You’re not entitled to Camden or Knoxville.

Great...list 5 of them for us. The adequate jobs part needs to support your locations.

Look at small cities in Nebraksa (unemployment 2.7%) and North Dakota (unemployment 2.3%) to start. Sioux Falls SD (1.6%) or Rapid City SD (1.8%)

I absolutely, positively guarantee that an able bodied adult who takes a job in an agricultural processing plant or physical rehabilitation facility in these towns/ cities will earn enough to cover rent and utilities and a used car+insurance in the geographic area where they work.

Renovated 1-bedrooms in Sioux Falls SD rent for about $1200 inc. utilities. A no-skill-required job in logistics WITH health benefits pays $22/hr. or $3500/ month. Construction pays $31/ hr or $4900 month, again with health insurance. The no-skill nursing assistant job pays $22/hr.

So if a couple take jobs as a nursing assistant and logistics when they move to Sioux Falls, they will gross $7000 a month. Which will easily cover their 1-bed apartment with granite and a pool ($1200), 2 car payments on a couple of very reliable 2021 Toyota Corollas ($375 x 2 = 700), car insurance and groceries and gas.

This assumes married filing jointly.

There are cities like this all over the country, actually. They are in places that Amherst-educated DCUMer Caitlin would never personally consider for herself, but they are readily available for the low/un-skilled guy languishing on the outskirts of DMV who claims he "can't afford" to live here.

Let's be clear about your "proposal". You are saying it's okay for local governments to significantly restrict new supply of housing, in order to force people to move to other metro areas? Other places which clearly most people are not interested in moving to, as indicated by population numbers?

Should Fairfax County set up a resettlement agency? Connect with local govs in South Dakota to carry this out? Maybe ask Congress for some new interstate powers? They did it in 1942 after all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are plenty of affordable areas of the country to live.

I think you are missing the point. There was an article recently about some random town in Michigan…probably an affordable area in your eyes.

Well, the median price has doubled in just the last 5 years because of people selling from high cost area and moving there. Great for them, but now the locals are priced out.

Now they have a homeless problem…mainly due to local jobs not paying enough and rents increasing as much as owning.

It cascades.

Then these priced-out people need to move to an even cheaper town/city/zip code /state. Their inertia and lack of hustle is not a “crisis.”

There are vast, vast swaths of the United States that have plenty of homes and these do overlap with adequate jobs.

Domestic migration is a tradition in the US, or it used to be.

If your rent goes up to the point you can’t afford it, and you have no specialized skills keeping you tied to, say, semi-coastal Maine, then you need to move inland. Or to upstate NY. Or Iowa.

All of these places are looking for certified nursing assistants and have low rent options. You’re not entitled to Camden or Knoxville.

Great...list 5 of them for us. The adequate jobs part needs to support your locations.

Look at small cities in Nebraksa (unemployment 2.7%) and North Dakota (unemployment 2.3%) to start. Sioux Falls SD (1.6%) or Rapid City SD (1.8%)

I absolutely, positively guarantee that an able bodied adult who takes a job in an agricultural processing plant or physical rehabilitation facility in these towns/ cities will earn enough to cover rent and utilities and a used car+insurance in the geographic area where they work.

Renovated 1-bedrooms in Sioux Falls SD rent for about $1200 inc. utilities. A no-skill-required job in logistics WITH health benefits pays $22/hr. or $3500/ month. Construction pays $31/ hr or $4900 month, again with health insurance. The no-skill nursing assistant job pays $22/hr.

So if a couple take jobs as a nursing assistant and logistics when they move to Sioux Falls, they will gross $7000 a month. Which will easily cover their 1-bed apartment with granite and a pool ($1200), 2 car payments on a couple of very reliable 2021 Toyota Corollas ($375 x 2 = 700), car insurance and groceries and gas.

This assumes married filing jointly.

There are cities like this all over the country, actually. They are in places that Amherst-educated DCUMer Caitlin would never personally consider for herself, but they are readily available for the low/un-skilled guy languishing on the outskirts of DMV who claims he "can't afford" to live here.

Just spent 30 seconds a Google search and there is an article from 9/24/24 about the Sioux Falls housing crisis. The median monthly house payment is 40% of median wages which the SD government realizes is unsustainable. Also, mention people from Minneapolis moving out there since it’s cheaper than that area and only about a 3.5 hour drive…some may only have to be in the office like 1 day a week or people are just moving there for cheaper RE.

ND areas are near oil and gas deposits and they have grappled with housing issues for years and workers end up living in trailers.

Sorry..what else do you have? You can’t just randomly list places that you think so affordable that actually aren’t compared to the jobs that actually exist and median incomes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no housing crisis, there is only an entitlement crisis. People expect houses to be way larger than before, they want fancy kitchens, his and hers closets, a separate bedroom for each child. Expectations have become completely detached from what the average person can realistically afford. This is a giant ruse by developers and the real estate lobby.

This is wrong because we actively want a small starter home and don't care about big closets or a bunch of bathrooms or a big kitchen. We are fine with something 1200-1600 ft and don't need it to be updated. But what I'm describing will cost you 500-600k in the DC area. There are a handful of places where you can get it for under 500k but they have horrible schools and we want at least okay schools.

The problem is that houses like that haven't been built in 30 or more years builders can make a lot more off high end, huge homes). The ones that are out there get gobbled up by developers who will tear them down and replace with a 1.5m new build. And the demand for land by these developers drives up the price across the board. If you can even get one of these houses at all-- lots of people coming in with all cash offers or willing to waive contingencies because they intend to tear it down anyway.

So yeah actually there is a housing shortage that is unrelated to some people wanting extravagant houses that are also magically cheap.

You are living in fantasy land. It's not even possible to build a new house that is 1600 sq feet for under 500k anymore in an area like DC. Even if the land were free you would not be able to find someone to build you a house for this price, (including site prep). Also, the median household income in the DC metro area is high enough to afford something that cost 500-600k, so it is not realistic to make a below average income for this area and expect to be able to afford to live in a the best school district.

Right which is why we need to build more high density housing that makes a home of that size actually affordable. If builders aren't going to produce smaller starter homes as SFHs then we need more townhomes and condos that families can afford.

Because guess what -- "median household income" means that a huge number of people in this area make less than that. So if the only housing available to families in the area costs more than they can afford then you have a housing problem. And if you tell all those people to go move somewhere cheaper then who will you get to do all the many many jobs that pay below the median for the area.

It kind of sounds like you are the one who is living in a fantasyland. Also the prior post was a direct response to someone saying "well the problem is that everyone wants a giant new build with huge closets and luxury finishes" and here is someone saying "actually no I just want a starter home I can actually afford the mortgage on with my actual salary" and your respones is "well that's a fantasy you can't have that." Right. That's precisely the issue -- people can't even afford run down smaller older houses. So where do you propose they live.

Here is some "high density" housing you can afford in an area with "at least OK" schools. https://www.redfin.com/VA/Arlington/1220-N-Meade-St-22209/unit-7/home/167195876
https://www.redfin.com/VA/Arlington/1220-N-Meade-St-22209/unit-7/home/167195876

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no housing crisis, there is only an entitlement crisis. People expect houses to be way larger than before, they want fancy kitchens, his and hers closets, a separate bedroom for each child. Expectations have become completely detached from what the average person can realistically afford. This is a giant ruse by developers and the real estate lobby.

This is wrong because we actively want a small starter home and don't care about big closets or a bunch of bathrooms or a big kitchen. We are fine with something 1200-1600 ft and don't need it to be updated. But what I'm describing will cost you 500-600k in the DC area. There are a handful of places where you can get it for under 500k but they have horrible schools and we want at least okay schools.

The problem is that houses like that haven't been built in 30 or more years builders can make a lot more off high end, huge homes). The ones that are out there get gobbled up by developers who will tear them down and replace with a 1.5m new build. And the demand for land by these developers drives up the price across the board. If you can even get one of these houses at all-- lots of people coming in with all cash offers or willing to waive contingencies because they intend to tear it down anyway.

So yeah actually there is a housing shortage that is unrelated to some people wanting extravagant houses that are also magically cheap.

You are living in fantasy land. It's not even possible to build a new house that is 1600 sq feet for under 500k anymore in an area like DC. Even if the land were free you would not be able to find someone to build you a house for this price, (including site prep). Also, the median household income in the DC metro area is high enough to afford something that cost 500-600k, so it is not realistic to make a below average income for this area and expect to be able to afford to live in a the best school district.

Right which is why we need to build more high density housing that makes a home of that size actually affordable. If builders aren't going to produce smaller starter homes as SFHs then we need more townhomes and condos that families can afford.

Because guess what -- "median household income" means that a huge number of people in this area make less than that. So if the only housing available to families in the area costs more than they can afford then you have a housing problem. And if you tell all those people to go move somewhere cheaper then who will you get to do all the many many jobs that pay below the median for the area.

It kind of sounds like you are the one who is living in a fantasyland. Also the prior post was a direct response to someone saying "well the problem is that everyone wants a giant new build with huge closets and luxury finishes" and here is someone saying "actually no I just want a starter home I can actually afford the mortgage on with my actual salary" and your respones is "well that's a fantasy you can't have that." Right. That's precisely the issue -- people can't even afford run down smaller older houses. So where do you propose they live.

Here is some "high density" housing you can afford in an area with "at least OK" schools. https://www.redfin.com/VA/Arlington/1220-N-Meade-St-22209/unit-7/home/167195876
https://www.redfin.com/VA/Arlington/1220-N-Meade-St-22209/unit-7/home/167195876

This is the same condo listed twice.

This is a 2 bedroom garden-level condo with no outdoor space (not even communal outdoor space) and a $538 per month condo fee. This could work for the right family (one kid or just very young kids or a single parent or two parents but neither works from home etc) but this is not what people mean when they say they are looking for family housing -- this unit is best suited for a professional single or couple or retirees.

Also as someone who has lived in a condo with a child I can tell you that it can work but it would be better in a community that was really geared toward families. It's hard living somewhere with and active kid when your neighbors expect essentially total silence at all times.