AdTheNad wrote:Duende wrote:If housing recovered tomorrow...
It's kinda funny how biased the media is in thinking that the inflated housing market is a good thing - it is only if you currently own. If you rent, it's pricing you out. I can't see how all renters wouldn't hope for a crash.
It's not just house price increases that are treated as a good thing. It's also share prices, land prices and others.
This is a great thing for those with lots of assets (rich people), but bad for people without assets (poor people). Just another wealth transfer from poor people to rich, and another reason the wealth disparity keeps increasing.
Imagine if house prices were $1 when you turn 18, then imagine they are $1M. Obviously cheaper houses is a good thing, unless you have a mortgage, or you enjoy enslaving others through being a rent seeking scum bag.
And if you have a mortgage, you should hope for a house price crash, followed by a loan write down with the bank taking the hit. Lets face it, the odds are quite firmly against everyone who currently has a mortgage being able to make all the payments over the next 20 to 30 years.
It's a complex issue. Most of us who have seen a large increase in the value of our homes and plan to stay forever aren't really making out - just paying more taxes - so a lower assessment would be not so bad in my mind.
Land and houses has (or at least holds) its value mostly because of where it is and more specifically what is proximate and what is desireable. In recent years, the idea of living in an area where you can walk to everything has grown in appeal to wealthy people. A CEO of a 1500 person company just moved onto my street because he wanted to be able to walk to hs company building - I could be wrong but I thing many people don't think of CEOs as thinking that way. This new demographic who desires this type of living has driven up prices because there is a limited amount of this type of living in the US.
The north part of the city I live in is more expensive than the south, mostly due to the fact that we have had high quality, rail mass transit in the north and around this transit has grown up intensive development full of things the people can walk to. The government and people have been
working a plan to bring streetcar rail to the south for a number of years. We are just about to approve the money. There is opposition in two camps - those that feel it will negatively effect their driving experience (above ground rail on street, not in dedicated lane) and those that feel that it will make housing less affordable. This second argument
described by a government council member here:However the Arlington County Board vice chair is less convinced of the plans for "transit-oriented development" along the Pike where a large percentage of the county's affordable housing remains. Transit oriented development aims to bring retail, office and residential development along major transit lines such as the Rosslyn-Ballston and Route 1 corridors.
"Transit-oriented development has been cruel" to low income people in Arlington, Tejada said in an interview this morning. The county's track record at saving affordable housing while pursuing development along the major transit lines has been weak, he said.
is basically saying that improving the community with high quality facilities - be it rail, schools, parks or whatever is bad because it will make the area desireable so that prices go up. I would argue that the problem really is that not enough communities are providing the facilities that are in demand. Those less desireable communities have plenty of affordable housing.