This isn't a simple supply and demand situation, zoning issue, or tax issue. If we built 1 million homes in California, only a small percentage of those homes would be deemed "affordable housing" and what would have to control that affordability? We don't want to have to subsidize, we need broader laws governing home values tied into median income for any given area. All banks scrutinze lending based off 35% Debt to Income ratio's, why not scrutinize appraised values of homes and include consideration for median income in all evaluations?
Since values where falsely supported by corrupt mortgages and appraisals then further supported by our government bailout not allowing the market to work as it should, why shouldn't people also expect to not be priced out of their neighborhoods? Shouldn't median income have anything to do with what housing costs should be in any given area? Everywhere in California for example isn't 5th ave or Silicone valley, so your argument is flawed.
Housing prices are dictated by supply and demand. The supply is artificially low due to zoning (this needs to be fixed), the supply was artificially high due to the issues you stated.
None of that has anything to do with taxing home owners. When you buy a house you should be taxed on what you paid for it. The government shouldn't have a back door to come and raise your taxes as high as it wants.
More Housing is no solution. That's compounding the issue at hand. Lower Property taxes plus value adjustments for areas based on median income could help ensure you don't price residents out of their areas and ensure healthy participation in the rest of the economy.
Adjustment of Home Values. If any given area is selling at levels higher than standard median income allows and that given area is experiencing a higher than average number of Foreclosures (or pick a reasonable threshold), requirements should be in place to ensure that if a home defaults, it doesn't go back to market at those same values, but lower. After all, if you go strictly by banks rules, housing costs shouldn't be over 35% of income to hopefully prevent this from reoccurring.
I'm not sure I understand. Firstly, banks can't offer their foreclosed assets as significantly less than market rate because homes are used as collateral in a mortgage, so they'd have to just stop offering mortgages, which means only cash buyers get homes
Secondly, even if a bank did offer the foreclosed homes much cheaper, it won't fix gentrification, it just means whenever a house gets foreclosed a bunch of cash buyers swoop in and flip a house back to market rate for a free profit (or realistically, hold a bidding war and end up paying close to market rate anyways)
It doesn't make logical sense suggesting a bank has any power to change market rate (whether that's an asset bubble or genuine demand)
Why should California be allowed to have the same percentage based property tax to begin with? Assessed values that skyrocketed due to Silicon Valley and Corrupted Mortgages and Appraisals shouldn't mean California gets to give itself a humongous raise at the expense of it's constituents. More so due to the bail out and them artificially keeping interest rates down re-enabling these high values. The economy as a whole would be better off by managing housing values to not be out of line with median incomes of any given area.
> The economy as a whole would be better off by managing housing values to not be out of line with median incomes of any given area.
I don't think anyone serious about this topic can disagree the economy would be hugely benefitted if the bay area built a massive amount of housing, particularly around transit corridors.
