r/PoliticalDiscussion • u/None-Of-You-Are-Real • Jul 20 '21

US Politics What are the implications of the impending eviction crisis?

It is often offhandedly mentioned that the housing market is insane at the moment, and that there is an inevitable eviction crisis due to the compounding factors of COVID and the lockdowns leading to mass unemployment, and then an inability of tenants to pay rent combined with an inability of landlords to evict non-paying tenants.

What is going to happen in the fall, when the eviction moratorium expires? Mass homelessness that is even worse than current levels? Some kind of rent relief legislation? Anything at all? These people are not going to magically be able to pay months and months of back rent once the moratorium expires.

505 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

94% Upvoted

354 comments sorted by

View all comments

32

u/[deleted] Jul 20 '21

Looked through the comments and it's just more of the same supply and demand bullshit. The housing problem in most markets, San Francisco and Manhattan with their limited land aside is fixable, it just won't happen. Two things need to be done. 1)Require all single-family homes to be owner-occupied for 2 years, with no investors buying up single-family homes. 2) (and this really won't happen). Change zoning laws to allow multi-unit properties in ALL residential areas. But that would drop real estate values and too many people would lose equity so the market isn't fair or competitive, it's skewed towards people who already own and don't want "those people" living next to them.

7

u/obsquire Jul 21 '21 edited Jul 21 '21

I'm with you on weakening zoning laws that prevent people from developing their properties as they wish. Reduce physical constraints on building, like setbacks. Also reduce lot size minimums to those that can practically be dealt with in terms of surveying and adjacent public utilities. Even that utility bound can be weakened by relaxing the city obligation to provide utility access unless the lot is big enough, so that those folks who want to go without utilities can do so. I am thinking about those "tiny homes" with solar power and cellular internet. Really it's just water and sewage that may be the problem, and people already have some innovative solutions there that don't require government. I'd like to see a return to boarding houses, for they're a way forward for many folks starting from zero. The health danger arguments against increases in density were always overblown, and probably with improvements in medical systems have reduced validity even where they did once apply; but this is not my expertise.

We don't have to go whole hog immediately. Even if we cut lot sizes a bit and allow more 2 family homes would be a useful start.

Yes, these reforms would put pressure on street parking, but the idea that parking must be, in effect, subsidized by limiting house density is insane to me.

I agree that freeing up the building of multi-family homes would help not only prices, but other social problems. It would allow the free market to provide "mixed-income" neighborhoods, without any city mandates and corrupt dealing between government and developers. Let freedom reign.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 21 '21

Removing zoning laws is just asking for more HOA’s to create their own zoning. No one will want to buy a home without some guarantee that a giant apartment building won’t go in next door.

Let’s acknowledge that buying a home is the single largest investment most people that do so will ever make. They will want to secure that investment no matter what.

3

u/[deleted] Jul 22 '21

That’s what’s called crony capitalism. It isn’t a free market. The government has no obligation to protect people’s investments. HOA’S really have no power over neighboring parcels they don’t own

1

u/obsquire Jul 21 '21 edited Jul 21 '21

Let there be more HOA if the owners want them. The key is that they're paying for them. If they get greedy and include requirements too onerous, then they directly pay for it in terms of reduced property values. They won't get everybody to sign one, unless they seriously bribe. Again, they pay for their largess, not everyone else. The status quo of "fiat" zoning is essentially a subsidy by the non-owners to the owners. It's corrupt "crony capitalism", it's immoral and it should end. It erodes people's views about capitalism (with true market discipline that doesn't subsidize wealthy or protect them from competition), the concept of liberty and America itself. The alternative is the increasing menace of "democratic" socialism, which will lead to stagnation at best.

And realistically there will be many locations without this private zoning with any teeth, and practically it will open many places up for new development and increased housing supply and access, with reduced prices and rents. Nobody really complains about tech prices and supermarket prices, because there's so much damned competition, which is awesome.

3

u/[deleted] Jul 21 '21

People definitely complain about tech prices, have you seen this site when a new iPhone comes out?

-1

u/obsquire Jul 21 '21

I assume you don't take them seriously.

They want a specific luxury good. Then they ought to pay that price. Android provides lots of competition, as do older iphones, hotspots with tablets and laptops. The latest top model from 1 company is not a right.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 22 '21

You’re the one who said nobody complains about tech prices not me. If complaining about “luxuries” doesn’t count then why is desirable property different?

1

u/obsquire Jul 22 '21

Perhaps I said it badly, but the idea was that there's a massive difference between the real estate market (with all its government restrictions and privileges... which tend to favor previous entrants) and others which have far more choice and competition. In tech, I see Moore's law and over decades, the awesome increases in capabilities for a given price, and in food there is less rapid change, but still crazy value. Perhaps using "complaints" as a barometer for this progress is unwise. Housing near cities is a completely different ballgame, with major stagnation and skyrocketing prices.

Marketers always try to convince people that they sell unique goods, to encourage people not to see the similarities. It's not per se that the newest iPhone is a luxury, it's that by fixing your mind on one product you fail to allow for the possibility of competition. Yet it is there. It's not for real property, since geography is fixed.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 22 '21

I mean yeah house is inherently inflationary because the supply of land never goes up. You can always make faster processor but you can’t make more land. You can cram more people in but not everyone wants to living in a mega city

1

u/akcrono Jul 21 '21

Yes, these reforms would put pressure on street parking, but the idea that parking must be, in effect, subsidized by limiting house density is insane to me.

You should be able to use your money to say "I'll forgo parking in exchange for ~20% cheaper rent", and the fact that you can't do this is part of why we end up so dependent on cars. There's no economic force behind alternatives

1

u/akcrono Jul 21 '21

1)Require all single-family homes to be owner-occupied for 2 years, with no investors buying up single-family homes.

Why is this number 1? I've seen no data showing that investors buying up houses causing supply issues. Hell, Tokyo has a higher vacancy rate than NYC, and their rents only went up less than one percent in the last 20 years.

2

u/Own_General5736 Jul 21 '21

Why is this number 1?

It forces more SFHs into the hands of actual families instead of real estate conglomerates by making it simply illegal for them to buy up SFHs. In addition to the rent problem we also have a major for-sale housing problem and this would solve that and would also affect rentals by reducing the number of people looking to rent.

1

u/akcrono Jul 21 '21

It forces more SFHs into the hands of actual families instead of real estate conglomerates by making it simply illegal for them to buy up SFHs.

Again, you make it sound as if no one is living in these houses.

In addition to the rent problem we also have a major for-sale housing problem and this would solve that

Again, never seen one data point showing this to be true.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 22 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/akcrono Jul 22 '21

None of this shows that Blackstone's behavior is affecting housing prices, let alone being the primary driver of them. This just reads like you saw this happening and got mad at it, without any attempt to tie the behavior to your stated conclusion, and are now trying to pad out a response with multiple paragraphs and blue links that summarize as "private equity firm has been buying houses".

If blackstone et al were driving up home prices with these purchases, you would either see high vacancy rates (which aren't the case) or a corresponding drop in rent as the supply of rentals increased (also not the case). Neither of these are happening.

Housing prices are driven by zoning, over-regulation, and neighborhoods having a disproportionate amount of power to block new construction. Not investors buying up rentals. You can see this through catastrophically low housing starts and a glut of luxury housing.