Childcare is expensive as is healthcare, food, transportation. Its almost like the elites at the FED, DOJ, FTC are the problem. They should study Russian history around 1917.
Start with the regulations in large cities like Chicago that keep a large number of family living units abandoned. What would happen to the urban housing crisis, and the real estate market if deregulation permitted abandoned housing and vacant land to be utilized for low to mid range housing?
That should have a positive impact on housing prices, help to make large cities more livable, and reduce housing cost in the economic sector that needs it most.
FWIW, firstly, I am a proponent of "not in my backyard". A massive deregulation (e.g. altering zoning regs) would upset as many people as it helps, so I am not in favor of going into Beverly Hills and getting carte blanche to chop up the Smith's, Swartz's or Ahmad's property when they sell it. However, there are plenty of neighboring towns, villages and communities that would be prime candidates for adding more density after passing new zoning laws. I have not read Caplan's "book" so I am going off your narrative. But, this is where, how and why, I see his work being implemented and successful:
IMO, after identifying the markets that would support it through a referendum, this whole thing will only work if the property sellers whose homes will be replaced with new, more affordable housing are made whole. That means their 80 x 150 sized property is now available (re-zoned) for four 20 x 150 size lots creating new homes at lower prices without bringing a discounted sales price to the selling home (property) owner. I'll bet even Beverly Hills has sections where this math and social structure would, or could, work.
Again, not having read Caplan's work, I'm making the assumption that he believes these new homes would be most successful in established markets where adequate infrastructure (schools, utilities, parks, restaurants etc.) is already in place, something that I believe is critical for success. If I understand his writing and your interpretation, this is the solution for affordable housing. Under this scenario massively increased wages are not as critical and real losses from a price correction, while one most likely needs to occur, may not have to be as severe.
This is all not really that complicated. Everyone wins - commission volume comes back, property sellers are happy, buyers pay lower prices to live in the locations they like - it's all good. It's actually happening now in small scale. But fast forward 10,20, 30 years and the whole housing landscape changes. All without disrupting people's choices in how they want to live. Happy is good! We'll see. Thanks, Brian
How does this potential boom in building interact with the declining birth rate?
Caplan doesn't say, but my strong belief is that birth rates are declining because young people can't buy a home to raise kids in.
Childcare is expensive as is healthcare, food, transportation. Its almost like the elites at the FED, DOJ, FTC are the problem. They should study Russian history around 1917.
That penultimate paragraph is NAILS!
Start with the regulations in large cities like Chicago that keep a large number of family living units abandoned. What would happen to the urban housing crisis, and the real estate market if deregulation permitted abandoned housing and vacant land to be utilized for low to mid range housing?
That should have a positive impact on housing prices, help to make large cities more livable, and reduce housing cost in the economic sector that needs it most.
Hey ROB,
Best post ever part 2 ;)
FWIW, firstly, I am a proponent of "not in my backyard". A massive deregulation (e.g. altering zoning regs) would upset as many people as it helps, so I am not in favor of going into Beverly Hills and getting carte blanche to chop up the Smith's, Swartz's or Ahmad's property when they sell it. However, there are plenty of neighboring towns, villages and communities that would be prime candidates for adding more density after passing new zoning laws. I have not read Caplan's "book" so I am going off your narrative. But, this is where, how and why, I see his work being implemented and successful:
IMO, after identifying the markets that would support it through a referendum, this whole thing will only work if the property sellers whose homes will be replaced with new, more affordable housing are made whole. That means their 80 x 150 sized property is now available (re-zoned) for four 20 x 150 size lots creating new homes at lower prices without bringing a discounted sales price to the selling home (property) owner. I'll bet even Beverly Hills has sections where this math and social structure would, or could, work.
Again, not having read Caplan's work, I'm making the assumption that he believes these new homes would be most successful in established markets where adequate infrastructure (schools, utilities, parks, restaurants etc.) is already in place, something that I believe is critical for success. If I understand his writing and your interpretation, this is the solution for affordable housing. Under this scenario massively increased wages are not as critical and real losses from a price correction, while one most likely needs to occur, may not have to be as severe.
This is all not really that complicated. Everyone wins - commission volume comes back, property sellers are happy, buyers pay lower prices to live in the locations they like - it's all good. It's actually happening now in small scale. But fast forward 10,20, 30 years and the whole housing landscape changes. All without disrupting people's choices in how they want to live. Happy is good! We'll see. Thanks, Brian