Gavin will own your home now

VonMeister

Duke status
Apr 26, 2013
20,251
6,976
113
JOE BIDENS RAPE FINGER
Also regarding the OP, to me, this is a shitty idea if it's for any home purchase and not for only legal citizens/residents who don't currently own a home anywhere in the US.

Otherwise, it's just going to tack on 45% to the Blackrock/residential-real-estate-as-monthly-recurring-revenue-generating-asset price.
This is nothing but an asset cash generating scheme. PE and RE investment firms have been lobbying for this for years. They saw the success of the 14 day drug rehab scam and how it turned a 4 bedroom neighborhood home into a $50,000 per month medi-cal cash cow.

If California democrats have a sh!t about the poor or minorities...... kids wouldn't be stepping over junkies having sex on their way to school, have to dodge stray bullets in their neighborhoods, schools wouldn't be 100% dysfunctional. This is by design in California all in the name of power by causing desperation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ifallalot

Ifallalot

Duke status
Dec 17, 2008
88,301
17,587
113
The bill allowing multiple families in single family homes from laidback's post, which I was responding to?

It's a deregulation, obviously. If previously, only one family could live somewhere by law, but now, multiple families can live somewhere by law, the regulations have been decreased.

The suggestion that the state throws in and owns 45% in your OP?

That's an increase in government participation and without some heavy restrictions on who is eligible for Sacramento Sugar, I highly doubt it will help poorer Californians.
That’s where you’re wrong

This is to build duplexes and bigger on single family lots

People with money will buy one of these places for more money than a single family home and rent them out, further exacerbating the situation

At least you realize that any participation in the market by Sacramento will cause more problems
 
  • Like
Reactions: laidback

Sharkbiscuit

Duke status
Aug 6, 2003
26,265
19,089
113
Jacksonville Beach
That’s where you’re wrong

This is to build duplexes and bigger on single family lots

People with money will buy one of these places for more money than a single family home and rent them out, further exacerbating the situation

At least you realize that any participation in the market by Sacramento will cause more problems
LOL the duplexes and bigger on single family lots will increase supply of housing. People are already renting out single family homes; doing that with duplexes isn't some kind of loss. The duplexes will rent for less than a single family house and will accommodate more people.

I do not, in the slightest, follow your reasoning on this one.

This is nothing but an asset cash generating scheme. PE and RE investment firms have been lobbying for this for years. They saw the success of the 14 day drug rehab scam and how it turned a 4 bedroom neighborhood home into a $50,000 per month medi-cal cash cow.

If California democrats have a sh!t about the poor or minorities...... kids wouldn't be stepping over junkies having sex on their way to school, have to dodge stray bullets in their neighborhoods, schools wouldn't be 100% dysfunctional. This is by design in California all in the name of power by causing desperation.
Your first paragraph seems fine.

Your second one...I'm sorry this is happening to you and can someone take you to the pharmacy for your meds?
 

hammies

Duke status
Apr 8, 2006
15,587
14,215
113
The idea is if you encourage more houses in R-1 zoned areas, housing supply would increase and the cost of housing would go down.

Beware the idea of the cost of housing going down. If costs go down across the board and large numbers of mortgages start going underwater, banks will stop lending to protect themselves and 2008 happens.
 

Ifallalot

Duke status
Dec 17, 2008
88,301
17,587
113
LOL the duplexes and bigger on single family lots will increase supply of housing. People are already renting out single family homes; doing that with duplexes isn't some kind of loss. The duplexes will rent for less than a single family house and will accommodate more people.

I do not, in the slightest, follow your reasoning on this one.



Your first paragraph seems fine.

Your second one...I'm sorry this is happening to you and can someone take you to the pharmacy for your meds?
Who will own those duplexes?

“Supply” refers to home ownership, which is the best way of developing middle class wealth. Concentrating more property among “evil” landlords does nothing for this, and is counterproductive

First step towards the Fecal dream of bloc housing
 

Sharkbiscuit

Duke status
Aug 6, 2003
26,265
19,089
113
Jacksonville Beach
The idea is if you encourage more houses in R-1 zoned areas, housing supply would increase and the cost of housing would go down.

Beware the idea of the cost of housing going down. If costs go down across the board and large numbers of mortgages start going underwater, banks will stop lending to protect themselves and 2008 happens.
IMHO you're going to need the banks to be margin gambling for 2008 to happen. This sounds more like a recipe for 1991 if there was a serious glut of inventory in California.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aruka and mundus

mundus

Duke status
Feb 26, 2018
36,723
15,942
113
The idea is if you encourage more houses in R-1 zoned areas, housing supply would increase and the cost of housing would go down.

Beware the idea of the cost of housing going down. If costs go down across the board and large numbers of mortgages start going underwater, banks will stop lending to protect themselves and 2008 happens.
Only if the scumbags on wall street repackage the garbage loans endlessly and the rating agencies are in on the scam.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aruka

Sharkbiscuit

Duke status
Aug 6, 2003
26,265
19,089
113
Jacksonville Beach
Who will own those duplexes?

“Supply” refers to home ownership, which is the best way of developing middle class wealth. Concentrating more property among “evil” landlords does nothing for this, and is counterproductive

First step towards the Fecal dream of bloc housing
Oh, so you're triggered by higher density housing and have a Nimby mentality.
But you are an altruistic landlord for letting FecalFace live rent free in your dome.

You also seem to be certain of the outcome on the effect of owner-occupied housing here. You know plenty of people live in places other than single family homes, and they own their residence?

The answer to who will own those duplexes seems to be the same people who own the single family homes: people who can afford to live there and want to own it, or people who can afford to own it and want to rent it. No shortage of single family homes being rented. No shortage of owner-occupied non-single family home residences.
 

plasticbertrand

Duke status
Jan 12, 2009
21,217
14,032
113
If California democrats have a sh!t about the poor or minorities...... kids wouldn't be stepping over junkies having sex on their way to school, have to dodge stray bullets in their neighborhoods, schools wouldn't be 100% dysfunctional. This is by design in California all in the name of power by causing desperation.
Yeah and if the Trumper radio show personality won the recall, all that would be fixed overnight because he would give a sh!t about the poor and the minorities.

It's easy!

Good to see you care about the poor and the minorities. :roflmao:
 

Sharkbiscuit

Duke status
Aug 6, 2003
26,265
19,089
113
Jacksonville Beach
Only if the scumbags on wall street repackage the garbage loans endlessly and the rating agencies are in on the scam.
Mundus, mundo, mundo-meister, the mundo-man.....

Wall Street would sell ketchup to McDonald's and put red food coloring in nuclear waste, call it a vegetable, and sell it to school districts if there was a wooden nickel in it.

The ratings agencies?? LOL

"These packets of catchup are rated Pu-242, which is even more stable than AAA!"
 
  • Like
Reactions: mundus

plasticbertrand

Duke status
Jan 12, 2009
21,217
14,032
113
Concentrating more property among “evil” landlords does nothing for this, and is counterproductive

First step towards the Fecal dream of bloc housing
Yes because those are the only two options!

The funniest part is that we have real life examples of what happens when you have insane population density and insist that single family homes are the only answer (Los Angeles).

But the only two options are Soviet Bloc housing or single family homes. :roflmao:

You love false dickotomy
 

hammies

Duke status
Apr 8, 2006
15,587
14,215
113
Oh, so you're triggered by higher density housing and have a Nimby mentality.
But you are an altruistic landlord for letting FecalFace live rent free in your dome.

You also seem to be certain of the outcome on the effect of owner-occupied housing here. You know plenty of people live in places other than single family homes, and they own their residence?

The answer to who will own those duplexes seems to be the same people who own the single family homes: people who can afford to live there and want to own it, or people who can afford to own it and want to rent it. No shortage of single family homes being rented. No shortage of owner-occupied non-single family home residences.
A nice duplex in a quiet R-1 neighborhood could rent for so much money! Or do a lot split and build a 2BR back house for half a mil, sell it for a mil. I am already thinking of the money-making possibilities!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ifallalot

VonMeister

Duke status
Apr 26, 2013
20,251
6,976
113
JOE BIDENS RAPE FINGER
LOL the duplexes and bigger on single family lots will increase supply of housing. People are already renting out single family homes; doing that with duplexes isn't some kind of loss. The duplexes will rent for less than a single family house and will accommodate more people.

I do not, in the slightest, follow your reasoning on this one.



Your first paragraph seems fine.

Your second one...I'm sorry this is happening to you and can someone take you to the pharmacy for your meds?
I'm there for the sex...not the school. I just hate being interrupted.
 

Sharkbiscuit

Duke status
Aug 6, 2003
26,265
19,089
113
Jacksonville Beach
A nice duplex in a quiet R-1 neighborhood could rent for so much money! Or do a lot split and build a 2BR back house for half a mil, sell it for a mil. I am already thinking of the money-making possibilities!
Where are they going to build new supply for which demand exists? Along the Trestles toll road? The LA basin looks paved over. Some of those hillsides that aren't developed look like mudslides waiting to happen. Also don't look cheap to build on.

I saw lots of undeveloped land on either side of I-5. My guess is, nobody really wants to live there that badly.
 

grapedrink

Duke status
May 21, 2011
25,935
14,723
113
A Beach
Where are they going to build new supply for which demand exists? Along the Trestles toll road? The LA basin looks paved over. Some of those hillsides that aren't developed look like mudslides waiting to happen. Also don't look cheap to build on.

I saw lots of undeveloped land on either side of I-5. My guess is, nobody really wants to live there that badly.
There’s quite a lot of space along the 101 corridor from Santa Barbara to San Jose.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ifallalot

bird.LA

Rabbitt Bartholomew status
Jul 14, 2002
8,110
1,786
113
LA
Hmmm... I live in a neighborhood that VM probably assumes is full of junkie sex and stray bullets, but it's really quite nice. Demographics suggest that many of my neighbors likely agree with him on vaccine mandates but would give him a sideways look for his opinions on racism. People are much more friendly and neighborly here than on the westside.

I'm looking forward to converting my single family into a duplex in the medium term too. Doing what I can to help ease the supply crunch in this city and lining my pockets a little on the way is a win/win. Does grapedrink really want development along the 101 corridor?

And what is with all you non-urbanites obsession with keeping urban areas from having urban development? I'm sure you don't want us elitists spilling into your shithole cultural wasteland burbs. Doesn't make much sense.

Partial government ownership of homes has been a very successful path to middle class wealth in other countries. Perhaps it will work here. Anyway, crypto is probably a better path to middle class wealth than real estate these days anyway. Complainers going to complain, the world will keep moving forward.

In conclusion, get fkd NIMBYs. Gen Xers LARPing as Boomers will be the least relevant people in this country by the time their ideological compatriots die out. Good luck to you all.
 

Ifallalot

Duke status
Dec 17, 2008
88,301
17,587
113
Oh, so you're triggered by higher density housing and have a Nimby mentality.
But you are an altruistic landlord for letting FecalFace live rent free in your dome.

You also seem to be certain of the outcome on the effect of owner-occupied housing here. You know plenty of people live in places other than single family homes, and they own their residence?

The answer to who will own those duplexes seems to be the same people who own the single family homes: people who can afford to live there and want to own it, or people who can afford to own it and want to rent it. No shortage of single family homes being rented. No shortage of owner-occupied non-single family home residences.
What’s it like to live in a theoretical land where you ignore reality?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: bird.LA

grapedrink

Duke status
May 21, 2011
25,935
14,723
113
A Beach
Does grapedrink really want development along the 101 corridor?
No, simply pointing out that there is open land. It’s the political climate that lead to less development. Which is fine, but don’t complain about how unaffordable it is if you also support the legislation and politicians that create the constraint and market conditions that lead to it.
 

bird.LA

Rabbitt Bartholomew status
Jul 14, 2002
8,110
1,786
113
LA
No, simply pointing out that there is open land. It’s the political climate that lead to less development. Which is fine, but don’t complain about how unaffordable it is if you also support the legislation and politicians that create the constraint and market conditions that lead to it.
On the 101 corridor its the lack of jobs and urban centers that led to less development.

But you're right that nearly all CA politicians (and citizens too - hello Prop 13) are complicit in the market constraints that led to where we are today. And now that we're working on solutions, NIMBYs are soiling themselves all the way from Arizona. WTF?
 
  • Like
Reactions: grapedrink