None. "Safeguarding" property values is how we got here; by definition if average property values outpace the growth of the market as a whole, that means every year people are priced out of housing.
But a house need not be a financial investment. A house is something you live in (Or rent out. Nothing against honest landlords from me.) and…
None. "Safeguarding" property values is how we got here; by definition if average property values outpace the growth of the market as a whole, that means every year people are priced out of housing.
But a house need not be a financial investment. A house is something you live in (Or rent out. Nothing against honest landlords from me.) and derive value from the use of.
Your car (probably) depreciates every year, but you don't mind because you understand that every year you're deriving value from it via the use thereof. There are financial structures (such as leasing) that allow you to pay for purely the usage value of the car if you don't want to outlay the cash on a depreciating asset.
Don't get me wrong, even with massive construction most real estate will hold value well and grow at about the same rate as the economy (and fall at about the same rate when the economy falls). And just as collectible cars actually appreciate quite well, there will probably be an even higher portion of highly desirable real estate that does the same (coastal villas etc.). But "protecting property values" is anti-growth dead end thinking of existing real estate owners constantly pulling up the ladders behind them.
To be clear I personally own real estate in currently (IMO) overheated markets. My parents do too. But it's in our interest even as real estate owners for American economic centers to continue to grow and thrive, more so than my theoretical net worth to keep climbing because the house I own is insanely valued.
Your kidding? Have a house with a mortgage and see its value go underwater because someone think we should have more growth? Or be oblivious to what developers would do an area once they realize homeowners have no protection? Sounds like you have no skin in the game?
I own 2 rentals. It's about growing the pie vs protecting my piece. More development might mean the increase in your home value isn't as steep, but how does that hurt you?
Sell your home to gain the cash, then you have to buy a house at a higher price. Property taxes are higher, commercial costs increasing puts strain on business, inequality leads to homelessness and crime, etc etc. I want the pie itself to grow.
I'm also morally against telling others what to do with land I do not own.
We should also tax land for its potential value. Someone who owns an empty lot near a middle class apt complex and retail center is free loading (and likely hurting the other 2 owners investment). Tax the vacant lot as much as the other 2 in order to incentivize development.
1) My real estate property value rising does absolutely zero for me practically speaking. My theoretical net worth being higher does not improve my quality of life at all; indeed by strangling growth and making it more costly for me to move around the country (real estate transaction costs keep spiraling higher alongside the market) the current state of affairs *hurts* my quality of life. And this is speaking just from a very narrow view of my self-interest. A broader view of my self-interest would encompass an enlightened understanding of how economic growth in my neighborhood/state/country improves my own career prospects, my other investments, and those of my friends and family.
2) Having a mortgage that somehow ends up underwater no more hurts me than having a car loan that's technically underwater. I can afford the payment, and I'm getting value from the house/car every month, so it's worth it. To be clear, I think the likelihood of this happening is extraordinarily small in any plausible pro-growth environment. My expectation is that my real estate value will correct a bit and stagnant in such an environment, but I would be OK if the worst is realized because of all the advantages to me in point (1).
3) Whatever the developers will do "once they realize homeowners have no protection" is probably much less than I want them to do: build build build. Working people need places to live near the economic engines of this country. There are people in my immediate local economy that lose 3-5 hours of their time per day just to commuting because they get priced further and further out. Insanity. Think of all the human flourishing (IE productivity/consumption/leisure/self-education/etc) lost to how massively inefficient this country has become in housing people near where they are most productive.
None. "Safeguarding" property values is how we got here; by definition if average property values outpace the growth of the market as a whole, that means every year people are priced out of housing.
But a house need not be a financial investment. A house is something you live in (Or rent out. Nothing against honest landlords from me.) and derive value from the use of.
Your car (probably) depreciates every year, but you don't mind because you understand that every year you're deriving value from it via the use thereof. There are financial structures (such as leasing) that allow you to pay for purely the usage value of the car if you don't want to outlay the cash on a depreciating asset.
Don't get me wrong, even with massive construction most real estate will hold value well and grow at about the same rate as the economy (and fall at about the same rate when the economy falls). And just as collectible cars actually appreciate quite well, there will probably be an even higher portion of highly desirable real estate that does the same (coastal villas etc.). But "protecting property values" is anti-growth dead end thinking of existing real estate owners constantly pulling up the ladders behind them.
To be clear I personally own real estate in currently (IMO) overheated markets. My parents do too. But it's in our interest even as real estate owners for American economic centers to continue to grow and thrive, more so than my theoretical net worth to keep climbing because the house I own is insanely valued.
Your kidding? Have a house with a mortgage and see its value go underwater because someone think we should have more growth? Or be oblivious to what developers would do an area once they realize homeowners have no protection? Sounds like you have no skin in the game?
I own 2 rentals. It's about growing the pie vs protecting my piece. More development might mean the increase in your home value isn't as steep, but how does that hurt you?
Sell your home to gain the cash, then you have to buy a house at a higher price. Property taxes are higher, commercial costs increasing puts strain on business, inequality leads to homelessness and crime, etc etc. I want the pie itself to grow.
I'm also morally against telling others what to do with land I do not own.
We should also tax land for its potential value. Someone who owns an empty lot near a middle class apt complex and retail center is free loading (and likely hurting the other 2 owners investment). Tax the vacant lot as much as the other 2 in order to incentivize development.
1) My real estate property value rising does absolutely zero for me practically speaking. My theoretical net worth being higher does not improve my quality of life at all; indeed by strangling growth and making it more costly for me to move around the country (real estate transaction costs keep spiraling higher alongside the market) the current state of affairs *hurts* my quality of life. And this is speaking just from a very narrow view of my self-interest. A broader view of my self-interest would encompass an enlightened understanding of how economic growth in my neighborhood/state/country improves my own career prospects, my other investments, and those of my friends and family.
2) Having a mortgage that somehow ends up underwater no more hurts me than having a car loan that's technically underwater. I can afford the payment, and I'm getting value from the house/car every month, so it's worth it. To be clear, I think the likelihood of this happening is extraordinarily small in any plausible pro-growth environment. My expectation is that my real estate value will correct a bit and stagnant in such an environment, but I would be OK if the worst is realized because of all the advantages to me in point (1).
3) Whatever the developers will do "once they realize homeowners have no protection" is probably much less than I want them to do: build build build. Working people need places to live near the economic engines of this country. There are people in my immediate local economy that lose 3-5 hours of their time per day just to commuting because they get priced further and further out. Insanity. Think of all the human flourishing (IE productivity/consumption/leisure/self-education/etc) lost to how massively inefficient this country has become in housing people near where they are most productive.