Simple: Rentals are temporary accommodations (also know as a hotel) dressed up as if they were a home. An Apartment Rental is not a long term home and we have to stop allowing it to be substituted as such. Through a rental moratorium, we are stopping landlords from exploiting our communities.
As someone who's struggling to save up enough for EVEN A 3% DOWN PAYMENT, affordable long term rentals are necessary for potentially years ahead (because life gets in the way, w/ shit like car repairs eating savings up)! So what is this for? The principle? I need a home, I can't live in a principle!
Yikes. I think you should rethink this one. This is a super classist perspective.
The average cost of buying a home Arlington County, VA is $770,000 with initial costs (5% down, 3% closing & $5K misc.) of around $67,000. Depending on who you listen to, the income required to afford such a home is between $168-$300K. Banning rentals is all about socioeconomic segregation.
Geographic mobility is at an all-time low and you want to further restrict people’s movement? Talk about fascism
Dude has a a point, despite all of the pushback he’s getting. A primary way the middle class USED to build wealth was through home ownership. Building more rental units won’t help us get back to that. And don’t forget since the financial crash of 2008-2009… 1/x
…hedge funds and other corporations have been buying up single-family homes to rent out, with the effect that the housing market tightens, raising overall housing prices, which in turn results in rising rents. Renting has become extractive; ask anyone who rents… 2/x
…what percent of their monthly income goes to rent - it’s a lot more than it was 15 years ago. Not to mention incidences such as rental companies in Atlanta (last year) colluding to keep rents higher than they should be. 3/x
No, rather than encouraging renting, we need to (1) encourage building if single-family homes (or single-family townhomes/condos if you want higher density), and (2) restrictions or even prohibitions on corporate ownership of single-family housing. 4/x
CA legislators are considering such bills; see calmatters.org/housing/2024... 5/x
So perhaps a rental moratorium isn’t quite the way to go, but the direction is a good one. There will always be a place for renting, but it’s not a substitute for middle class home ownership, not if we want to encourage middle class wealth-building. 6/6
You can't possibly mean this the way it is phrased here. You should probably delete this and try again.
Given how he keeps doubling down, he really does seem to mean it the way it is phrased here.
They want all new developments to be luxury condos with a minimum size of 1,250 sq ft. Sigh. Arlington did not need a second Audrey Clement, but we have a second Audrey Clement.
Simple? Simple minded
FFS really??!! You need to get out the basement more.....
Did you learn this in the whopping two years you have spent in the county?
did you get dropped on your head? in what world is a rental not meant to be a long term home?
I've been renting my apartment for 10 years. It's not a slum. This is the most ridiculous argument. You don't improve housing by removing options. You increase options to account for differing financial circumstances. This is a brain-dead ideology on your part.
Restrict the market to allow landlords to jack up rents. Haha take that landlords!
Restrict property usage. Exclude people from using their property to collect rent. Watch how many houses flood the market. Watch price discovery reach levels owner occupiers can afford. #CriminalizeRent on primary residences
Working in Community DevelopmentI I can tell you think you're doing good here, you're not this will not help low to moderate income families from being abused by landlords this will cause rent to increase and push more people into homelessness.
Tell that to countries where most people live in rental housing and move houses less often than American small-scale real estate speculators... Err, sorry... "homeowners"
How many people are you willing to make homeless to accomplish this dream of yours?
It is refreshing to hear a political proposal that has definitely been thought all the way through.
I bet there are a number of wise non-profit/low-income housing development experts in Arlington and NOVA with a long career's worth of knowledge, who can explain to you why this is a nonsense idea. Seek them out!
In all seriousness, how many affordable housing experts did you talk to who think that this course of action will solve the problem you're trying to solve?
This is it. The worst take I'll see all day. Kanye himself couldn't do worse.
lolwut? This is just word salad you made.
You sound like my most conservative boomer neighbors who long to disenfranchise anyone who hasn't owned a single family home in the city for at least two decades. 🤦♂️
New leftist-NIMBY take just dropped: convert renters to peasantry financially-bonded to the land. IMO, you (along with other leftist-NIMBYs) just have to come to the realization that you're actually conservative and you'll be much happier.
It feels like some of us renters are already peasantry 🙃 Rent prices throughout my city have increased to the point that I am pretty much stuck here in the place I already rent. Can't find a different place in my budget that's the same as what I already have.
This might be the dumbest dumbshit pro-landlord dumb shit I’ve read on here from the beginning. Solid ratio though
This guy is obviously a conservative plant, fuck him up.
This is probably the most demented housing policy idea I've ever heard, I would literally prefer hukou to this
I showed this to karl marx's ghost and he's extremely pissed he can't kill himself
As someone who has rented for the past two decades, I assure you, it is not a temporary status. (I also have tenants on year 13 of their lease).
Yikes. I lived as a renter for eight years. Only reason I could buy was immense privilege and access to familial wealth as a gift from my parents (at an obscene sacrifice to their savings). If that weren't the case, I'd still be renting today. And I wouldn't hate it or consider myself transient.
Aww cmon, why is everybody dogpiling on this poor…. Candidate for County Board???? Okay yeah never mind carry on
Wow, what a terrible take.
There are many people who can't afford the down payment on a home, or don't have credit good enough to get a loan. Where do you propose they live?
I can't help but notice the utter silence here. Might I propose that, if you can't answer such a basic question about the consequences of your proposal, you haven't thought through that proposal.
Jeramy do you genuinely think that developers are going to build more homes for individual sale in Arlington if your policy passes or do you think they'll move three miles down the road and build somewhere else What do you think existing renters will do once supply dries up
Are you just... dumb as a fucking rock?
this must go so hard if you’re stupid
do... do you think houses are plentiful enough in your county to support everyone buying one?
Your politics are bad.
I like having temporary accommodations to sleep in. For example: hotels and apartments
The absolute tone-deafness of this post from someone with a Captain America pic in their bio. Do you think Steve Rogers owned or rented in Brooklyn? Should Peter Parker be homeless?
There is a world of difference between night-to-night, week-to-week, month-to-month, and annual rentals. We need to increase opportunity and capacity. That means more housing of all types in all neighborhoods.
appreciate the focus on street safety, but this is a terrible idea. if you ban rentals, you also ban renters. and of course a rental is a home.
The unmitigated trustifarian hubris of this post 🙄
I think landlords suck as much as the next person, but this isn’t a moratorium on landlords, it’s a moratorium on new housing, which allows landlords of current housing to jack up their prices and gives them even more control.
No. It’s a moratorium on new rental housing. Build as many new owner occupied homes to sell to people as you want. And guess what, you’ll have to sell them to people at prices those people can afford. Not for prices that landlords can afford. Landlords make housing more expensive.
There’s no provision in the policy to prevent private equity from buying the owner occupied homes and renting them out. Just against building rental housing. If you want to do something about landlords, you have to do it directly. You can’t do this wishy washy indirect shit.
In that case the zoning should be updated to prevent those units from being used as long term rentals.
Well, yes—that should be the first solution before you ban constructing housing in a housing crunch. You should also prosecute users of RealPage and have real antitrust laws to prevent large corporations from owning all the housing.
What the fuck are you talking about? I know people that have lived 30 years in the same apartment.
You have never talked to an actual person
Well done, very progressive.
This is moronic. You are an idiot.
Ok but you get that that only exacerbates existing problems with housing right
A moratorium on new constructions BENEFITS LANDLORDS IN THEIR AIMS OF EXPLOITING PEOPLE. You goofball. Have you ever looked at who opposes new rental housing construction? Have you ever noticed that it's mostly the existing landlords in the area?
It is no different than food hoarding cartels being opposed to new food shipments. Scarcity is good for those who own the existing supply.
Also not everyone wants to own their home! Or wants to be in a co-op. We need pro-tenant regulations. I didn’t want to own a home when I was younger. I liked renting. My MIL has disabilities that make maintaining a home difficult. Renting works great for her. Banning rentals is insane.
We happily rented for a long time, bought a starter home, bought a bigger home, and when W leaves for college we really want to go back to an apartment or rent a condo. Tired of being responsible for tons of upkeep
Being able to rent a 400 square foot studio saved my sanity in law school when I found myself in a bad roommate situation. I have a bigger house now. Some day I’ll likely downside. It’s almost like different people have different housing needs.
Imagine that!
My rental apartment building is kind of equal parts young people/new immigrants starting out and older folks who have lived here for decades or downsized here. it's a good mix!
This is absolutely batshit. Stating that up front. Just bonkers But ArlCo is delivering a lot of new housing, and almost none of it is adding to ownership market, it’s all rental. Would be nice to have more ownership opps coming on market, allow more folks to take an equity stake on the community
The size of the housing stock in total, including owner-occupied and rental properties, relative to demand, has an impact on the affordability of the ownership market. If you build apartment towers and reduce the number of people who are pushed into renting homes, you make buying homes easier.
Who exactly is being "pushed into renting"? This is a bizarre, and offensive, take.
Anyone who can’t afford a down payment for a mortgage, man. Offensive? Like… what?
Does it not occur to you that not everybody wants the hassle of paying a mortgage? That millions of us choose the liquidity that comes from renting? To assume that everybody who doesn't subscribe to you own cliche about "the American Dream" is somehow a victim requiring your pity? Offensive AF!
Granted, it won’t make homeownership cheaper overnight, but it does have an impact.
I don’t disagree, but it’s an indirect effect, and assumes that the owned stock in ArlCo is relatively interchangeable with rental stock. I’d argue that it isn’t, and if someone wants to buy a new unit in a multfamily building, they can’t. Curtailed production isn’t the answer, of course. But.
We have had basically no new condo production in MKE in so I get the issue with being unable to own a unit in a multi family building. I support policies that can promote ownership, including for MFH. But banning new rental construction is such a bad idea that it’s beyond laughable.
Right, owning the property means owning the risk and liability! Sure, you can insure against some of that, but maybe you just don't want to own the risk and liability in the first place.
Regulations to protect tenants and ensure adequate living conditions = good. Requiring people to own their homes and mandating a 1250-square foot minimum for residential units = bad.
That’s dumb - we live comfortably in 860 sq ft as a family of four
I’m pretty sure the nice 2 bedroom 2.5 bathroom SFH I rented in DC was 1200. I have lived in apartments ranging from 400-1500 square feet.
My semi-detached house is wonderful with a rear balcony and deck and a front porch with 4 bikes locked up - three bedroom, 1.5 bath, incredibly walkable neighbourhood and street parking out front under the Japanese maple. Not everyone needs a ranch house.
Rentals are good for women leaving abuse, trans folks fleeing red states, and other vulnerable populations as well. Not everyone can wait 60 days to close on a house or access financing.
Renting made it easy for me to move to a nicer place closer to work when I got a new job. It made it easy for me to move across the country when I got another new job. It made it easy for me to move back. I didn’t want to own at any of those times. I wanted to write my check & have shelter, the end.
Renting made it easy for me to not be homeless. I don't have 50 to 100k to put down on a house.
Government should provide a zero down, zero interest, transferrable mortgage to each citizen for purchasing their first home.
US deregulated home mortgage borrowing back in the 90s to allow more ppl access to home ownership, that did not work out well w/ subprime lending going up causing the housing crash a decade later. Some people can't afford houses nor do they want to be tied to one town/city
“Missing Middle” fried so many brains in Arlington
So in other words, anyone who can't afford a house is barred from living there? Well that's not incredibly classist, no siree.
get RATIOED
What an absurd argument. If people couldn't rent, society would grind to a halt.
I dont think he is saying that. I read the actual thing. He is saying Home Ownership should be encouraged by limiting the rental offer by corporate institutions. I read the actual proposal, it lacks the how and moves the Bishops to a point the queen can get killed but not a bad starting point
Ummm. In his post on here he explicitly said that apartments are not homes.
This is untrue, stupid, and insulting
Do you disagree with this "I am pushing the community to stop conflating a long-term hotel with the housing supply. We have centuries of evidence to point to how LANDLORDS are the only ones who benefit in the long term from rental accommodations"
Yes I do. I absolutely believe that apartments are homes and not "long-term hotels" and that for many renters, owning is a bad choice.
As long as he keeps calling apartments "hotels" people are going to be justifiably offended
I work in RE and for YEARS i have been saying that out of control rental prices rob people from the possibility of ever become homeowners by cutting the ability to save. In America just because u dont have 20% down u have 2 pay Mortgage Insurance, literally a tax on the less wealthy who want to own
The guy you're arguing with works in real estate, which he finally copped to with me after several rounds of telling me that renting is bad.
I muted him after a few rounds
I had to work i didnt leave. I happen to understand the big picture in MY area. Did I say RE is local? I believe i did. In my area this is whats happening New builds in an area that used to be poor and is being gentrified. This is a FACT I rather have DPA and Comm redevelopment than this fat cats
Now show me EXACTLY how this benefits anyone but the Landlords. They have taken the land and redevelop with the city blessing, then turn around and said F'it We dont want the poor here we want people making 100k plus www.apartments.com/avery-dania-... No one who lived in the area can afford this
Ownership of the land creates wealth & the Landlords are the ones getting it and if its not controlled landslords are sucking the possible savings the young people have. His POV is that of a GenZ he has no multilevel thought or describes an intelligent "How" however the fundamental idea is not crazy
yes, becuase it fundamentally misunderstands the nature of renting as a zero sum situation, my landlord makes money but i get somewhere to live, i am benefiting from this arrangement particuarly as i am unburdened by the hassles of property ownership
I absolutely know people who have lots and lots of money and simply don’t want to deal with owning and maintaining a house, so they rent instead
yep also the whole idea that ownership is some guaranteed wealth creation is based on some super flawed number goes up wish casting, housing markets do crash, my parents have been forclosed on twice (early 90s and 2008)
I understand. However I believe his POV is of a GenZ . I see it because i have 2 GenZ One in DPT school and the other in into Early Child Ed. There is ZERO way they can pay rent & save enough should they want 2 buy. And when they can have 3.5% they have to pay a MI tax because gov assumes deadbeats
I can't pay rent and save enough to buy - limiting the supply of places to rent isn't going to fix that and insulting everyone who rents also doesn't fix that
And what do I know may be thats a solution there. I liked Kamalas Idea of 25k DP assistance too. I would love to have MI removed from high LTV mortgages too. And Capping Flips at 25% of purchase value within 2 years of ownership, Giving grants to FTHB to fix those houses instead of going to flippers
Did he insult them? I didnt read that there, I may have missed it. He is saying that allowing Corporations to manipulate and monopolize the Housing Market through rents robs the people of HIS town of the possibility of owning. Remember GenZ POV
Its a good thing you read it. My point is most Comments are just getting outraged by comments and opinions made by people who didnt read it. SM has a way to do that crap
People are getting outraged by his statements, which are in fact insulting to people who live in major cities, don't want to own, or literally cant due to physical or personal limitations. You can keep defending it, but it is an asinine statement plain and simple.
You cannot tell me that the rented apartment in NYC where my father grew up and where I visited my grandmother for years, was not their home.
I dont think you understood my point. I said multiple times his proposals have a POV : GenZ, His Ideas Moot without "HOW" but People only read Comments and get outraged on comments from people that havent read the thing, that actually has valid points it adds more than takes its a starting point
Other VERY important thing is 2 understand that RE is always local,I dont know details on HIS community,I see NYs have a very different POV. I am from SEFL parent of GenZs & understand a lot of it comes from that. Charge $2.5k for a 550sq 1/1 Will deprive a GenZ with Student debt 2 EVER own anything
Location is not even good for these examples. What can a 22 yo New Teacher with a 45k salary with 30k student debt, a car, can do ? This shit is obscene Yes they "Can" pay it but can they save? This ROBS wealth that should be used for actually owning it and creating wealth not tranferring it
I don't even wanna ask how this is supposed to "work". Are we supposed to just stop paying rent and squat where we're living? are we supposed to voluntarily become homeless to crash the economy? we definitely need a moratorium on Dudes With Big Bad Ideas.
It's worse than that, he's essentially proposing we stop all home construction unless it's single family. Its a guaranteed way to crash the housing supply and the US economy.
especially since all housing experts say we need more multi-family dwellings, not fewer
Yep. What it reads as is "I was promised the white picket fence and a yard and damn the apartments, I'm gonna get them.
Through a medical school admission moratorium, we are stopping doctors from exploiting our communities.
ahh yes, the medical residency system
Yeah, it’s funny that the physician lobby actually did push for this in order to extract more money from the public. Just like this candidate is doing on behalf of landlords!
My best friend growing up lived in the same apartment for a decade and his parents still live within a mile. How are they not long term residents? Why do you think the place I live inis not my home? Why do you think people who recently moved in don’t matter?
The communists took away my grandfather-in-law’s very modest apartment when they arrived in Budapest. He was unable to buy it back until after the communists were gone. Under communism he had to rent. Your brain is leaking out of your ears.
oh grow up. please.
This is the dumbest shit anyone has ever said
boooo
oh okay so you're a child
You can't trust these kids with this kind of responsibility. They don't know what they don't know.
My impression of your account: Tell me you are the epitome of cognitive dissonance without telling me you are the epitome of cognitive dissonance.
Rich kid has shit ideas, this breaking news and more at 11
Besides this being just a really wild comparison, not everyone wants to buy a home?
Like this is really classist, how does any college graduate start their life in a town with no rentals.
Yes. Or high-school or trade-school graduate. Everybody doesn't go to college.
precisely
What the actual fuck is wrong with you, and I say this as a homeowner.
Holy fuck dude what is your problem?
When you reduce, or limit supply, demand increases, and prices go up. This is a gift to the landlords you hate. Also, people have lived in rental accommodations, ranging from single rooms to entire estates, for millennia. Families can live in apartments for generations. They're *homes*.
So are rental HOUSES also short term living, like hotels? Christ, what are you, 20?
Looking at that picture, maybe?
Taxes on empty units. Bans on private equity owning homes. Crackdown on landlord collusion. Renter protections. Social housing. Not...whatever the fuck this is.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQCU...
What? You look insane to the outside world, you know.
Not insane. Privileged.
That too!
I'm sorry but this doesn't track. I'm sure you mean well but you really need to spend some more time working your messaging out
Please take this as gently as I mean it but in seeking simple you've forgotten or not noticed where else simplifying like this hasn't worked out and what it's done to the involuntary down the chain
JFC, this is such a privileged and out of touch take.
Jeremy. Where the hell do we live if there's nothing we can afford, nevermind buying via mortgage? Just move between rentals continuously?
Your opinion seems to be that people should stay where they were born and never leave. They shouldn't move out for school, for example.
I stayed where I was born but my mother in law will die someday… and when that happens…. SSI cannot afford much and its similar amounts in every state.
My mom has lived in the same rented apartment for 53 years. When I go there it feels like home. STFU.
Holy shit did you say hotel? Go fuck yourself.
also thinks all rental homes are slums so, yeah fuck this twat
Jeramy your proposals lack the HOW to it. I understand is the young people POV,because not having access to ownership precludes a huge sector of society to build up wealth,not all millenials are Crypto buyers. However "How" is important & ALSO not having the group of the poor & SSI is an error
Not THAT DERANGED jeramyolmack.com/policies-new I Read the outline of the proposal, it lacks the "How" to turn renters into owners. But he is saying that Corporate Greed is behind the build up of Rental Condos, also is a lot about rules of size of residential living which is very important
No, it's completely deranged. Pure economic flat-eartherism.
I agree on a couple points but my POV is SEFL, 1-The Sizes of living facilities are becoming ridiculous with 1/1 apts below 600sqft (In Dade County Fl is common) 2-Corporate Buildup is not directed at housing the poor and rental prices are out of hand and make saving for DP impossible.
Yeah not sure in what universe people on ssi could afford to own anything….
If anything Corporate buildup should be FORCED to have units directed at SSI recipients and Section 8 recipients. In FL there are many ways for Landlords to reject tenants and somehow Sec8s Get ALWAYS the redlined.
There's no difference in the benefit to the poor from new housing being built, even if 100% of the new housing is luxury housing. Wealthy families taking that new housing means that middle class families move up. Middle class families moving up vacates their old homes, etc, etc, etc.
The key thing is *building more housing.* Mandating that some amount must be built for lower income residents will probably lead to less housing & therefore higher prices for low income families.
I doubt you can actually "mandate" What CAN be done is stop giving them permits and channel that $ Into DPA programs and Community redevelopment Housing. One thing similar to mandate would probably be a mandatory 10% if the value of the project for a community redevelopment fund
Wat
I have a thread about a Community called Dania Beach will send
bsky.app/profile/jeep... I put data and things that are exactly what the guy is talking about in Arlington I suppose something similar is happening there
OK but what are people who make SSI amounts of money supposed to do in the years while they wait?
It takes on average five years to build housing in my state. So we’re going to assume that I’m not going to be included in that first round. and since all of the low income housing is priced for people who make $17 an hour about, because that’s about the minimum wage where I’m at…
There's no magic solutions. It sounds like your state (&/or municipalities) have put up malignant structural barriers to building new housing—removing or constructively reforming those barriers is going to take work (& probably voting a lot of NIMBY bums out of office).
Does your area have $300-$400 rent at market rate?
And the big city has a $20 minimum wage…. So we’re talking everywhere that isn’t the big city…. All working people make three times as much as I Maximumly POSSIBLY could, minimally. They are going to keep putting out housing that caters to people who make the minimum wage but not others…
Even if you take Housing expense to 40% DTI people would still need substantial DPA but I prefer that, than to have people paying 50-70% as Housing expense as renters. It robs the people out of wealth
They never get around to my income bracket I am not really sure what I should be doing in the meantime. I was priced out in 2019.
It is exactly people like you that should be helped! U were probably trying & then puff everything out of reach,but renters pay more than what they can afford if it was a mortgage. Renters pay $2.6k for a 1/1 that is 50%dti in housing expense for someone making 60-65k people making 45k pay that here
“It lacks the ‘How’…” That’s kinda the important tidbit. Scarcity of housing is what drives all the prices (rentals *and* properties) into the stratosphere. If you actually want to make housing more affordable, plan a large supply of new housing, both rentals and homes.
Thanks. You caught on to that. Is not deranged but its like looking at the chess board and having a thought about moving the bishop to win the game but that move kills your queen and you will lose it. I dont believe shushing him as crazy is the point driving him to HOW questions is the point
I think his proposal is well-intended but hasn’t (at all) been thought out, and would have the direct opposite effect he’s going for. I can state “free ice cream for everyone” but if I’ve come up with no plan how to do that it’s just hot air, not really a plan is it.
So it needs to be welcomed and said, "dude, you are in the right direction but the shoes you are wearing are not for this road" Instead of commenting on the comments and getting outraged by the comment of the comment. I bet from all this thread very few people actually read the thing.
Jeramy, I’ve lived in my current apartment for 20 years now, and it’s definitely my home. Due to disability, there is no possibility for me to ever own my own home. You should probably give this issue some more thought, and maybe talk to some apartment dwellers about their lives.
Ownership should be granted after a certain period of time has passed or a monetary value has been reached, then, if that is what the resident wants.
Landlords rent property as income. If, after a certain period of time, they LOSE the property (as it will no longer provide income), they'll insure that no tenant will stay that long by only issuing limited leases.
That only works if you have a condo association or a co-op. How do you manage the maintenance on a building when one person in one unit owns just their unit but nothing else?
Being homeless sucks, but at least you're not being exploited by a landlord.
#VanLife #CriminalizeRent
This is a joke account, right? You do know these people are being sarcastic?
No sir. It is illegal to own another man. It should be illegal to own another man’s home. #CriminalizeRent on primary residences
Yep! It is illegal to own another man. It should be illegal to own another man’s home.
What? I'm curious about this: should everyone get a mortgage?
wrong again. we have a long tradition of people renting that worked very well for a long time. individual home ownership was not always the norm. bookshop.org/p/books/stuc...
You mean a moratorium on short term rentals for Airbnb bullshit, right? Right?
No, I'm afraid not. He actually is against people living in rental properties, full stop.
yeh
yeh
yeh
Hey man, maybe try not coming up with all your political ideas while high as a kite?
This is embarrassing
this is the kind of stuff that makes people decide to identify as conservative
Fuck you
"Exploiting our communities" by ensuring that the people who work service jobs in them can actually live there. Just go live in The Villages.
lmao holy shit man c'mon
Ooh, that's a nice ratio 👌
Being in the military requires a move every couple of years. Do you foresee any military people who might need to rent an apartment in your county?
Hold on I see that 2 other parts of your platform are "more pickleball courts" and "designated smoking areas in public areas". You've really captured the Arlington County zeitgeist, lad. I will blow some huge clouds in your honor.
🤡
.... I'm almost 44 and have lived in an apartment for 41 of those years When i lived in a house, i was 0-2, and 16-17, so I obviously did not own those
/facepalm
A third of households rent in the U.S…
I thought this was a joke and you were trolling people. Now I’m not sure and deeply hope my assumption was right because otherwise that is unbelievably stupid.
Not everyone wants or needs a long term home. Staying on top of real estate upkeep can be stressful and financially difficult. (I ought to know) The DC metro area is home to many people who want and need to move around. I realize you’re very young, but you have to get real.
Sorry @sjshancoxli.liberalcurrents.com
i accept your apology
ever heard of “city”
This ain’t it chief
This is a nonsensical take
So what's your plan to increase the supply, and affordability, of long-term homes? (Leaving aside that people live in apartments for decades, raise families, etc. It's scary to see someone out of touch with reality trying to gain power. We've seen what that means w/Trump.)
uhhhh what
So people who are temporarily in the area will be forced to compete for a home purchase, or book a hotel room for like a year at a time? Students, military, contractors… have you thought this through at all?
Are you 12?
So your plan is to manufacture the very scarcity that benefits the landlord class. Are they paying you to work this hard for them?
That is some capitalist brainwashing you have there. Totally missing the reason why this is completely untenable
Call from Henry George on line 2.
I rented and was in the same two-flat building for 5 years. Knew all the neighbors, the alderman, and went to community meetings. The homeowner (my live in landlord) did none of those things. Absolutely ridiculous assumptions.
Where are immigrants supposed to go? Or are you against that too?
Wait until you hear about property taxes
you are a reactionary wrecker.
I move every three to five years because that's how a career in federal land management works - you have to move out to move up, it's virtually impossible to be promoted in place. It makes no sense for me to buy a home and then have to sell it every three to five years. Capiche?
I prefer renting in a duplex than staying with my parents, actually.
I hope you will read the replies in good faith. Your repliers here are making serious points (along with some unavoidable derision).
simple: the most baffling thing you've ever read
You think all rental units are hotels? What a maroon.
Are you saying you think 21 year olds should be able to buy houses right out of college with no savings?
Are you stupid, for real?
I'm sure glad you aren't running for office anywhere near me.
There's a woman running for mayor in my town who said that rentals aren't real homes.
There was a woman running my hometown when I was a kid who argued for castrating crows. It's about the same level of lunacy, I think.
This lady probably wants that too. (Though, we have ravens here and I'd like to see her try. Those dudes will fuck her up)
That's an incredibly dumb take
Did a landlord propose this?
This is classist as hell. So people who aren't rich enough to afford a down payment don't actually have homes, and don't belong in your community?
Where I live, you can be making $100K/yr and still not be able to afford a house, ask me how I know
OMG fuck you you little piece of shit!
You need to speak to geographers, planners, and housing non-profits before you say these things out loud. Ask them what will happen.
What is exactly do you suggest people who don’t own property do?
This little boy’s privilege is showing. As well as his ass.
I hate it when existential problems are questioned, without providing alternative solutions.
Did you just equate renting an apartment to a hotel? What the fuck is wrong with you?
Unbridled privilege and a ten-cent brain, it seems.
Build public housing and pass tenant protection laws if you want to help people avoid exploitation by landlords, banning the creation of new rental units just helps existing landlords at the expense of all tenants and prospective tenants
I don't think he wants those things
What an embarrassment. Where are your parents?
Have you been dropped on your head recently
Have you ever owned a house? Because there are a lot of reasons why people want to, or need to, rent rather than buy. Yes, for the long term.
so what's your solution for people that need a place to live right now?
people need solutions, not idealism. what problem are you trying to solve here? home ownership? how are you going to make that affordable? why would preventing apartments from being built be part of that solution
As someone with a degree in urban planning - the discipline is mostly rooted in random aesthetic and moral notions and most urban planners are economically illiterate and are not good critical thinkers.
Uhhhhhhh what?
My career has required me to relocate on an extremely regular basis. I don’t know what you think would happen to workers like me, but I promise you it isn’t good. Yet, my work is good. I was deemed essential during pandemic closures. 🤷🏻♀️
This is the most asinine thing I've read/seen on the internet all week. And Donald Trump is still posted everywhere.
Thank you
This is easily a top five finest things I’ve ever heard someone say about housing. Just say you don’t want to live around people with less money than you.
Oh cool do you have a plan to instead put enough money into people’s hands to buy property instead? A program to give people down payments? Because otherwise you’re just driving up rents on existing properties and making more people homeless
I have lived in a rented house for 25 years.
Dude, wtf.
do you have the house money for everyone or
I am sorry, but this is nonsense
Before WWII home ownership wasn't that widespread. Home ownership being an American value was started as a marketing slogan by the real estate industry to sell houses to veterans. Your view isn't just insulting, it's historically incorrect.
The funny part is, when the district resoundingly rejects your dipshit proposals in the election, you’re just gonna double down and blame a nebulous conspiracy for your failure instead of learning anything
Nothing makes housing more affordable and achievable than strangling the supply with insane NIMBY policies.
So with that logic we should allow slums to pop up? Just because it’s now got “luxury” in-front of it doesn’t make it any less of one.
I live in a rental. Are you telling me I live in a slum?
Btw, im embarrassed that you follow me. Have you learned nothing from my posts?
Slums don’t just “pop up”. They are created through anti-renter and anti-multifamily policies.
Go fuck yourself.
it’s extremely telling that you would equate apartments with “slums”. jesus christ the overt classism is wild.
With a tinge of underlying racism to boot... the kid sounds like a Reagan Republican for fucks sake.
This.
You're being disingenuous arguing that all new rental constructions are "slums." There can be standards and building codes in place. But restricting supply WILL fuck people over while benefitting the landlords you claim to be targeting.
By reducing the supply of available housing, *my* plan will ensure renters bid against one another for what little remains which will hurt the greedy landlords by causing prices to... uh... well... oh... wait, see... um...
Hey, "supply and demand" is real top-tier, PhD-level economics stuff! You can't expect just *anyone* to understand such complex math! PS:Sarcasm.
"slums" is doing a lot of work there, including some you probably don't want it to be doing.
Oh he does, he just doesn't want you to know that. He was hoping to slip that one by you.
If you're gonna run on conservative idea and stereotypes you should probably change your party affiliation.
Ah, the fearsome “luxury slum”. A thing many people are now becoming concerned about.
Slumxury
...dude. You are saying that any property not owned by its inhabitants is a "slum." You are absolutely nowhere near as progressive as you think you are. You are classist as fuck.
Your dogwhistle can't get any louder here. Just be honest and admit you're racist and classist and then get the fuck off this platform.
jesus
have you ever visited a slum jer?
ah so youre a clueless sheltered rich kid
I have lived in my current — rent controlled — apartment for 28 years. I have never been able to afford a home in my city. “Simple: I want to create way more homeless people, including you!” is pretty indefensible and ignorant.
You are a fucking idiot
Have you been eating toads or
How to tell a kid comes from a rich family part the nth
Quite right, who needs those dirty poors looking for a safe place to raise their kids or young people just starting out or people moving into the area for new jobs? Nobody! LET COMMUNITIES STAGNATE AND WITHER AND DIE LIE GOD INTENDED!
This rant wins a follow.
I 100% agree with you. However I did post the actual proposal. Its not THAT deranged. Sometimes SM becomes the answer 2 answers of whatever others interpreted. The proposal is to stop corporate build up,not individual. Cut slum lording and changing building code to force decent size units, not crazy
So only extremely wealthy individuals can build apartment buildings? What?
Dot take out of context. Read it. I had the SAME reaction as you did, but then i said,before I answer i will read and see what he has to say. There is a lot if holes and no real " How to" but allowing people to bring solutions to corporate greed is how we solve it jeramyolmack.com/policies-new
So this would preclude all of the apartments in my building, including my own, which is about 1000sqft. There are three multi-bedroom apartments in my building, but the rest are studios. This does exactly what we're all reacting to - no new housing unless you're rich enough to buy a single family.
on the other hand Building codes are allowing 1/1 of 460sq ft .. Just because rich builders bribed and own the city boards and change the codes to charge more per sq ft. There has to be a balance, as i said if it starts the conversation on these issues is a better start than getting outraged by it
I think this asshole calling the place I have lived for almost a decade (and other places I have lived for the last 30 years) "a hotel dressed up as if it were a home" pretty good reason to be outraged. That's a broadside insult to everyone who rents in a multifamily building. Who talks like that?
I think he is making the point as a GenZ. RE is local and he is running in his community. What is true in his town is not true in another. All RE is local. I cant measure Miami the same way as some little town in the midwest
He's in ARLINGTON VIRGINIA.
check This in South Florida not even a " Good Area " how will an entry level Genz out of College with Student debt will ever save to build his wealth? This shit is what should outrage us. Corporate buildings creating an impossible market.
Is that like New York? Thats outside DC i have been there. Yes its fucking outrageously expensive. But not a Big city. I see him as a GenZ understanding things like a GenZ person. Ownership is aspirational and inability to obtain is a thing.
The best thing you can do for these wealthy isolationist suburbs is let them die on the vine, I'm actually completely serious about this. No housing means nobody can come into the area for new jobs, so no new businesses will start up. People will age out and move away and nobody will buy their /
homes because there are no local services, no businesses, the schools will stagnate and close because no young families will be moving into the area so no children to educate and certainly no teachers who can afford to live there anyway, no elder services because caregivers have no place to live /
and eventually the area will just become a dead zone, property tax needed to fund town services will be more than the remaining mortgage is worth because the tax base just isn't there. No fire, no police, no garbage collection, no public works... When people try to sell those bloated single-family/
homes they'll only be able to unload them for pennies on the dollar (so there goes their hoped-for retirement investment), and eventually the town will be so choked by its own greed that it will have to sell to developers who will knock them all down and build multi-family buildings and only then /
will people start to build up the local economy. Throw in some sidewalks, bike paths, walking trails, and light rail if you're feeling ambitious, and bury the greedy protectionist suburb six feet under the earth.
Anyway: for a model of the exact opposite of this look at Newington, CT, just south of Hartford. They looked around and said "hey where did everybody go?" and immediately put in bus and bike lanes and approved new multi-family housing development to bring in young people and keep the place alive.
A counter-example being the town literally across the Berlin Tpke, Wethersfield, which built out new housing next to wetlands (which is very nice, I approve, lots of birds and critters) and built it as a *cul de sac* 1000ft from the grocery store. No road, no bike path, no walking path. You have to/
get in your car and drive out of the neighborhood and around it, get on route 15 and go all the way back in the direction of your house -- 1.5 miles -- just to end up a 5 minute walk from where you started.
Rentals are long-term housing for people who don't enjoy speculating on the value of real estate in the city they live in. They are to be encouraged; people putting their entire savings into one risky asset should be discouraged.
Maybe. But I will say that in a healthy housing market, housing would be cheap enough that people wouldnt be forced to put savings into one asset.
How can you have a healthy housing market when every home owner is financially incentivized to increase their property value by restricting the supply of housing in their neighbourhood?
The weird part is that homeownership rate has no correlation with housing prices. The two most extreme examples are Hong Kong, with ownership rate similar to Germany, and Ireland, which has a higher owner rate than us.
Like a way to encourage homeownership, but limit home prices would simply to put a lifetime cap on principal residence deduction.
Or a capital gains tax that applies to housing.
That too! But I feel like the public would hate it, so I'll soften it by putting a cap on the capital gains exemption.
Plus a lot of people want to own homes, so thats a reasonable compromise.
Yeah, and within Europe, the two main low-home ownership places, Switzerland and Germany, are respectively an average builder and one of the slower builders per capita.
I wonder if we could have a public rental model instead. I e thought about it before, and I very much dislike landlords, but I also hate the idea of wealth being tied up in housing.
In theory, yes. In practice, the political demands on the public-sector landlord to keep rents low mean underinvestment in fixed plant.
Hmmm, well with the wealth not tied to the public, I think we’ll be stuck with this problem of managing housing costs. Investment in public housing options would definitely require an overhaul of the tax system
This one I agree to disagree. Ownership of appreciating assets like Real Estate is the best way to save and build wealth. Its not an speculative asset unless, of course, you see RE as something that is not held long term.
It only appreciates if supply is constrained. Treating real estate as a retirement investment is why we have an affordable housing crisis.
Not really. The argument for a policy that keeps housing costs low, so that wages are not drained away into the real estate sector, is a strong one. It allows people to invest in their lives and not simply housing. People still get wealthy, but everyone else is allowed to live decent lives.
Best way for who? Not for the holder, because this asset will fail precisely when you need it the most (recession, local decline, divorce, etc.), unless it gets extensive subsidies. But also not for society, because it creates too many people reliant on undiversified assets.
I have been in Real Estate in all positions, agent, investor, landlord, Builder (invest in specs), Owner. Know the industry well. Ownership of the land creates wealth IN MOST cases. And yes IRRESPONSIBLE ownership of DEBT creates Poverty.
Yes, of course you have, honey. You capitalize random words just like your president.
Not MY president. I think He is a crook and a thief and illegitimate. Pendulum thinking makes people as dumb as the marbles in the pendulum
lol
Example Grandma bought a house in a regular area in 1970 That house is by now paid off. She no longer has that expense and is leaving generstional wealth because in time even with ups and downs that asset has outpaced inflation.
No, it's causing inflation, because housing is people's single biggest expense.
It is not in society's interest to create a landed gentry class that can inherit real estate tax-free. That asset needs to be heavily estate and property taxes and the revenue used to reduce taxes on workers.
Incredible admission. Wall.
I forgot to say also lived in a bedroom of a family member when I came with $20 in my pocket at age 33, Slept in a run down cockroach Studio in an inflatable mattress in Miami, Driving a clunker. Yes I HAVE been on all sides. Thats is WHY i am for Affordable Housing and understand others POV
Yea good job learning nothing from poverty and becoming a member of the oppressor class.
Oh you're a shill for your industry and can only understand the world through that which makes you money. Thanks for the clarification. 'In most cases' ...
? Sorry I dont see knowledge of the Industry as a bad thing. I remember reading this book back in the early 90s It is still as relevant now a.co/d/0CAyNCL
Way to miss the point yet again. But keep grifting so you can make money.
Now I have the worst scum tingles. You're a landlord trying to jam capitalism down my throat. What an absolute creep.
Again you dont even try to read and already have an opinion. This is EXACTLY what the maga people are, they without reading, without facts spew all kinds of crazy getting outraged by the opinion of people who also didnt read. The book is really good and not written by an american.
Actually points out how the Native Americans were robbed of their land, and how land ownership was turned into capital and leveraged to create generational wealth. Written by a Peruvian worldjusticeproject.org/about-us/who... He is actually what we would consider a Progressive
You know what the MAGA people actually do, they don't read the comments made to them and they keep talking and call people dumb for not wanting to follow the jangly keys.
What's jamming capitalism down your throat is that the Wall fell, and it was glorious, and just about nobody wants it to come back.
How do people not know @alonlevy.bsky.social brings facts
I am not talking about communism. I am talking about how capitalism keeps finding a way to exploit people's labor and scam them out of the money they do make. This dude wants you to buy houses or else his entire life is a lie But go off and make up things you think I am saying.
Yes, ownership of assets generally creates wealth, but I get the same from renting and passively investing my money. It's not really a matter of responsibility - my wealth shrinks if there's a recession and so does a homeowner's, but mine is resilient to local shocks and the homeowner's isn't.
I dont disagree. I, as a father of a Gen Z, and 22 years of experience in RE in the USA and 10 more abroad. I told him to rent not buy in the current market, unless he makes money enough to buy a multifamily asset where you live on one side and rent the other, but cant so no, go rent i said
Yes, and the candidate who is being ratioed severely above wants this not to be possible for him.
Parisian here. Renting is **so** expensive that it's pretty much setting piles of cash on fire. Home ownership is hella expensive too, but at least someday I'll have paid off my loan (note, not a mortgage, that's pretty important). If renting were **much** cheaper, then yeah I wouldn't have bought.
The more I read about barriers to housing construction, the more I'm convinced we need to stop exempting primary residences from capital gains tax. Gain in property value (profit off neighbourhood scarcity) = share some of that with the public. Lose property value = receive subsidy from public
Exactly. Home valuation is a proxy for too many things, including how popular the region is and economic status and more. Too many things which can change suddenly and tank value. And building an economy which expects homes to be valuable necessarily locks out the poorest.
this is going super great for you bud
so how and where exactly do people who rent apartments live instead? walk me through your plan here, including the cost of a stand alone home as well for everyone (for instance, the median home costs $950k here in seattle) as well the environmental impact of eliminating apartments
So you either buy a $500,000 house, or go homeless and/or just commit suicide? Renting a home, is a home... I'd like to make this mf eat his own teeth.
"An Apartment Rental is not a long term home and we have to stop allowing it to be substituted as such" Agreed, but where do you propose people stay while they gather the funds and there are enough houses for them? I'd say keep the rentals, but make them DIRT cheap
The way to have cheap rentals is to make it really easy for developers to build a shitload of rental units.
Nah, they'll just jack up the price. Legislate cheap rent
Ah, rent control. The one policy to implement if you absolutely, positively want to *guarantee* a housing shortage. Brilliant. 🙄
Yeah because landlords gouging the people is working so well now
This is only possible because supply is artificially limited. Supply is limited because of policies which make it somewhere between onerous & impossible to build new homes & especially apartments. Rent control has a 100% failure rate. It GUARANTEES even worse housing shortages.
An apartment rental can *absolutely* be a long-term home. People live and have lived in apartments for decades. Not everyone wants or can handle the hassle of owning.
I'm in a rented space. Now after 20 years, I will have to move due to the circumstances of the owner... It was never a "home", its a shelter
I'm sorry for your circumstances but this doesn't mean all rentals are temporary. For example I think the government should get back into the rental business. Also, buying a house doesn't mean you're safe. Lose your job, have a medical emergency, and your home ownership can be imperiled.
The differences is that you're not under the circumstances or whims of another person. The gov renting *could* be a solution
I've lived in my apartment for nine years. The guy who was here before me lived in it for 20. I lived in my last place for 13. How is that any more "temporary" than someone who buys a house and sells it five years later when they get a job in another state or have kids and need more space?
I find the whole changing states thing for a job fascinating. People around the world don’t do massive changes like that for jobs. It’s a very American thing. I wouldn’t move to Sheffield for a job unless it at least doubled my Yd
How far away from Massachusetts is California, do you know? How long would it take me to commute if I needed to go into the office every day?
Yeah. Like i said, just changing states and cities for a job is a very American thing. And changing so easily. The rest of the world doesn’t do that as the norm as you lot in the states do. But it also means you don’t really put down roots
Most of our children were born at home, literally in our apartment. Apartments are homes. People need homes. Restricting the supply of homes *benefits LANDLORDS* and *hurts people*
Not if landlords don’t exist.
I want a pony
Merry Christmas. The existence of landlords is why you can’t afford your own home.
I don't want to buy a home?
You’ll have to have a primary residence where the owner of the home is legally responsibility for housing you if you are ever evicted. Perhaps that is family/friend/institution or you could buy a very cheap property somewhere as your primary residence then pay rent somewhere else.
... you just invented hukou
Not quite the same thing. You could rent if you have a signed housing guarantee contract with a third party that legally binds that third party to provide housing for you in the event you are evicted from your rental.
... that's just extra rent!
Wrong again. In the event you are evicted from your rental, your housing guarantor would be required by law to house you without charging you any rent or fees.
The fact that you think renting is temporary and anyone can just leave and buy a property outright after renting for a bit, shows how financially privileged you are. Typically people who rent are unable to buy a property.
Some of us live paycheck to paycheck and straight up can't afford a downpayment, not now, not ever. Not unless real estate prices literally crash and burn. We have literally no other choice but to rent for the foreseeable future.
I'm not talking about a small minority here either, there is a very significant chunk of the population in North America who experiences this. It's a very common situation. Most people I know my age have completely given up hope that they will ever own a home in their lives. It's just too expensive
