TL;DR: Americans now need to make $120K a year to afford a typical middle-class life and qualify to purchase a home. Minimum.

  • Pips@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    The DC mess is entirely on the mayor and city council allowing developers to run rampant and price the average homebuyer (who have fucking high five to mid six figure salaries) out of the market. It’s unreal and while people try to claim the recent crime wave is bad parenting, the fact that no one can afford a house is a major part of it. Doesn’t help that property taxes can jump by 17-40% per year whenever some developer sells a house in your neighborhood for 2.5x what they bought it.

    • aesthelete@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Doesn’t help that property taxes can jump by 17-40% per year whenever some developer sells a house in your neighborhood for 2.5x what they bought it.

      This is where I like owning property in California. Prop 13 goes a little too far, but it prevents you from being yuppyed out of your house and having your taxes jacked up because a hipster decided to start flipping houses in your neighborhood.

      For those that don’t know, this is what prop 13 does (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_California_Proposition_13):

      The most significant portion of the act is the first paragraph, which limits the tax rate for real estate:

      Section 1. (a) The maximum amount of any ad valorem tax on real property shall not exceed one percent (1%) of the full cash value of such property. The one percent (1%) tax to be collected by the counties and apportioned according to law to the districts within the counties.

      The proposition decreased property taxes by assessing values at their 1976 value and restricted annual increases of assessed value to an inflation factor, not to exceed 2% per year. It prohibits reassessment of a new base year value except in cases of (a) change in ownership, or (b) completion of new construction. These rules apply equally to all real estate, residential and commercial—whether owned by individuals or corporations.

      EDIT: Until the last sentence I’m pretty with them. Why push grandma out of her house? But it shouldn’t necessarily apply to commercial real estate and corporate owned crap.

        • aesthelete@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          Yeah it’s a double edged sword. It also perpetuates suburban sprawl because schools are usually funded through property taxes (which, why? But ok) older areas of cities tend to have crappier schools because the taxes remain low. In order to get around this they build new municipalities that will allow additional taxes, and then you’ve got another suburb in a fire risk area with a better school that’ll attract families.

    • nbafantest@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Ironically DC needs more developers. It’s one of the most economically productive areas of our country. The opportunities to improve your life are endless there. People shouldn’t be blocked from pursuing a better life because someone person doesn’t want to live next to a duplex on someone else’s property

      • Pips@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        Okay but the developers exclusively flip affordable properties into luxury properties. Middle income housing is rapidly disappearing, the average 3 br costs like $800k to $1MM. The big new thing is buying a single family rowhome that would fit a family of 4-6 (or more) and turning it into a 2-unit condo with an HOA where each unit is only a 2 br and charging double or more what they bought the house for (buy the house for $850k, now trying to sell each unit at $890k). It’s absurd, unsustainable, displaces the local population, and ironically decreases the number of people that could have lived on the property.

        • nbafantest@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          This only exists because local government has made it so hard to build housing. This is the outcome when you limit supply.

          Think about what would happen if there were artificial government limits on the amount of shoes that could be made. Only luxury shoes would be produced.

          • Pips@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            Maybe elsewhere but not in DC, the city government has courted developers hard since before the pandemic. There are legal building restrictions because of the large number of historic properties but that doesn’t explain why costs are skyrocketing as supply increases. The answer is the supply that’s increasing is not the 3-5 br that people need when they hit their 30s and 40s. You can have a ton of studios but that doesn’t really help a 3 person family. Likewise you can have 3 br condos for $1.2MM and still not help the average buyer.

            • nbafantest@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              10 months ago

              They’re still not building enough, unfortunately. The largest generation of Americans has entered the housing market. Building 13,000 houses a year just isn’t very mcuh after decades of restriction and shortages.

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      The DC mess is entirely on the mayor and city council allowing developers to run rampant

      LOL, no. The mess – in DC and every other major American city – is entirely on the zoning code not allowing developers to run rampant enough, and instead enshrining single-family houses even when demand warrants multifamily.

      • Pips@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        DC is rapidly converting affordable homes into multifamily luxury units. Developers running rampant jacked up costs citywide.

        Also, the city is less than 10 square miles and built on a swamp. Just based on infrastructure it can only handle so many people before it runs into serious issues.

        • grue@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          DC is rapidly converting affordable homes into multifamily luxury units. Developers running rampant jacked up costs citywide.

          No, you just fail to realize that prices would’ve been jacked up even higher if developers weren’t increasing the housing supply.

          • Pips@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            How? Most individuals wouldn’t sell their house for double unless the demand is there because they can’t really afford to let the property sit while they’re trying to buy a new place. The developers buy the properties before they hit the market for more than asking, split the property, make minor improvements, sometimes make things worse, then crank up the price. Meanwhile, there was definitely someone who was willing to buy at the seller’s original price, they just never got the chance.

            • grue@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              Okay, it sounds like there’s a misunderstanding. You’re talking about house flippers, while I’m talking about razing single-family houses to build apartment buildings in their place.

              • Pips@lemmy.sdf.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                10 months ago

                Yeah we’re likely talking past each other a bit. Also, unlike most cities where multiunit buildings will include 3 br or more units, DC just doesn’t. It’s entirely possible to have kids and live in a condo or commie block style housing, a lot of the world does it. But all those places also account for the fact that needs change and sometimes people need more space. Removing 3 br units from the market decreases housing supply and increases the rental supply. Basically the city is turning into a renter’s market because, unsurprisingly, no one wants to buy half a house for double the price. So rental companies will come in and buy those two unit buildings to convert into rental properties and in the process remove supply. It’s a very fucked up system.

                • grue@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  Fun fact: in a lot of places, 3+ bedroom apartments are rare mostly because of excessive minimum parking requirements (e.g. “1 space per bedroom”) that will never get used, but makes them uneconomical to build.