Comments by "Lepi Doptera" (@lepidoptera9337) on "If Nobody Can Afford A Home... Who's Going To Buy Them?" video.

I had a colleague in the city who told me that he wanted to have bigger bedrooms and a large yard for his children. He quit and moved to a small community some 20 or 30 miles from Denver, I believe, where he got it all. Large lot, large house, good schools and a better job title at a smaller company. He didn't get any more money, but he was much happier with the new arrangements than with his cramped and expensive lifestyle in the city.
5
There is no right to get what you claim you need. Investment firms are typically not buying single family homes. It's not a business model they can make money on. Neither can you typically convert private homes into commercial real estate in the US. The local zoning laws usually don't permit that. That's part of the problem. Single family zoned areas can not be converted into multi-level condos that provide more living space for people. We have plenty of suburbs with a density of half a dozen people per acre or less. That's a total waste of what is essentially urban area.
1
The people who "created this problem" are homeowners in good neighborhoods. NIMBY makes it virtually impossible at the local level to increase the density of communities. This works in the short run for people who already own homes because they are rising in value faster than the reassessment of property taxes reflects. It makes it very expensive for new home buyers. The city and county governments are torn because on one hand the lack of new housing makes it harder to attract employers, but the main income source is the real estate tax, which does greatly increase when new buyers are purchasing at doubled or even tripled home prices. So, no, voting for another party at the state or national level will do absolutely nothing about the problem. You need to haver your brain checked because it's clearly not working. ;-)
1
Did you pull that turd out of your own rear or somebody else's? There is not a single condo or single family home within five miles of my place that is owned by a corporation as far as I am aware. My rental building is owned by an elderly lady who will probably hand it down to her family.
1
@AKATenn I am living in a smaller city (nothing of the sort of New York or Chicago or LA) and there is no large scale development going on here even though there is employment. That there isn't is the problem. There are simply not enough one and two bedroom units for the younger people who want to live here. That's a consequence of NIMBY. People aren't losing a lot of homes right now. There is hardly anything on offer because everybody who owns a home is holding off on sales if they can. They are waiting for higher prices.
1
@AKATenn That "it's more worth it to keep it empty" is absolute nonsense. That developer is losing an enormous amount of money right now. What happened in your neighborhood is that they overbuilt or they misjudged the demand for that particular price range and kind of real estate. In no universe are empty buildings worth more than buildings that are producing hundreds of thousands of dollars of rental income every month. I have no idea where people are getting these strange ideas from. That people are waiting for prices to go up is not a "problem". Do you want to force people to sell at a fixed price? Are you a communist or something? What kind of bullshit idea is that? There is a market and the market allows people to make choices. They can buy and they can sell or they can decide not to do either. End of story. Now, the are better regulated real estate markets in the world. See e.g. Singapore. Care to guess what is going on there, right now? Home prices are exploding, despite all those regulations. Regulations can't beat supply and demand.
1
@AKATenn Homeless are not in the market for million dollar homes. Not every problem is the same problem. That's what I am saying... you are suffering from NIMBY. Are you by any chance living in "gentrification Karen land" aka San Francisco? That's another one of those diseases of the mind... this idea that everything has to stay as run down as it was in the 1960s and 1970s. Yes, some people do get pushed out of gentrifying markets. Those are the people that have kept the place in squalor for decades because they didn't have the income to make it better. They can live in squalor somewhere else. Nobody of importance cares.
1
@AKATenn Like I said, nobody around here sits on 10,000 empty properties. Even if they did, it wouldn't do anything for the homeless. Just give it some time. A developer can only afford to leave a property empty for so long. After a few years they will start lowering prices.
1
Typical YouTube bullshit. Most people can afford a house or at least a condo. Most people can't afford a house where they want to live. THAT geographical distribution problem is what upsets people. Yes, we all want to live in a hip city or at least a safe neighborhood. Most of us can't. Cry me a river.
1
@treestuffer Dude, I can't afford a house where I want to live, either. Actually, I can't even get the loan for a condo at my age. Did you know that the banks aren't lending to people on social security? The point is: don't cry rivers. :-)
1
You need to stop drinking and get a grip on reality. ;-)
1