251
White House opens $45 billion in federal funds to developers to convert offices to homes
(www.marketwatch.com)
this post was submitted on 27 Oct 2023
251 points (98.5% liked)
politics
24543 readers
2863 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I said it elsewhere and I will say it here.
The problem though isn't a lack of housing, we actually have plenty for everyone. The problem is corporations buying up homes to rent them and in the process jacking up home prices. If these new homes are left to the tender mercies of the market there won't be any new homeowners. Just new rentals.
We simply need an exponential multi home tax that has no loopholes, like turning every home into its own business entity. Any home that is owned in any part by someone that already has a home should double in tax rates for both homes. If they own 3 homes all three should double again. There should not be any cap to this figure. Taxes should eventually cost more than the home itself. If you have the money to burn, good, you should be putting it back into the community you underpaid and abused when you collected it from them in the first place.
One home for everyone before anyone gets a second one.
Unproduction is an even bigger deal, that's exasperated by corporations buying up homes. We've been behind on home production (due to lack of federal support in home production, as well as zoning) before Covid. During covid, materials prices increased and home production dropped considerably. Does that mean we shouldn't tackle the fact that in the US buying multiple homes is a good investment? no. But making an effort to deal with the housing supply issue is very helpful. https://www.businessinsider.com/us-underbuilding-housing-over-the-past-decade-2020-9?op=1 https://www.npr.org/2022/03/29/1089174630/housing-shortage-new-home-construction-supply-chain
Yes and no. The problem isn't just these corps buying up houses and renting them out. Everything, even corporate greed must follow the supply and demand model. It DOES NOT MATTER how much landlords own the building if there is no demand.
Case in point, China overbuilt homes. There is literally 4+ homes available PER PERSON in China(calculating average sq/ft per home). The homes are literally pennies and the homes are all empty.
So while I agree that there is a problems with corporate greed, the majority of the problem is the supply. You increase supply, pricing comes down.
Cuz people and corporations that own land in metropolitan areas desperately need government handouts. Let them take a loss or a mortgage, like anyone else.
Keyword affordable
Oh right. Doesn't this usually mean they'll make like 3 units "affordable" for a few years, then renovate those into a single unit they can charge market for as soon as possible? Basically the minimum they can get away with to close the grift.
Pretty certain its a percentage of the units offered. So if a landlord wants to make more money, make more units.
Yeah that aspects sucks, but if it gets more housing made in the US, this sounds like a good enough solution for now. We can work on sharing landlord and corporate profits while this gets rolled out.
There it is folks yet another bailout for corpo scum! Can't have the corpos deal with the fallout of changing times, that's for Worthless™ "people" like us! They're even selling government owned property to help landleeches make more! Oh happy day!
They better not be converted to rentals if the government is paying for it.
I assure you, no normal person can afford to buy an apartment in a Midtown Manhattan high-rise, even if everything was done solely at cost. Rental units aren't a bad thing.
If one can afford to rent it + pay enough extra to make the rental have a profit then they can afford to own it. The government shouldn't be subsidizing profits for already large landlords, so there needs to be strings attached relative to how much money the government gives for the renovation.
Additionally, that's fine if only e.g. a lawyer can afford to buy it. If a bunch of upper middle class people move out of other neighborhoods to move here then it frees up cheaper units elsewhere.
Yet another program that supposedly helps the poor by giving money to the rich.
third peg of the program will see the federal government draw up a public list of buildings it owns that could be made available for sale to help bolster development.
Jesus Christ. If the government wants to build housing, then it should build fucking housing. Selling publicly owned buildings to private developers to turn into rentals for poor people is trickle down neoliberal bullshit.
About time this started happening.
Yes, my city has a housing crisis, a looming income tax crisis, thanks to WFH suburbanites, and multiple empty office towers in prime downtown real estate. There were already two of these projects underway, and it would be nice to kickstart another two.