shortage of affordable housing for young adults

actually you said local governments are the cause, then you submit an article that says local govts are just one piece or part of the cause? Do you understand?

 

Looks like there's a growing number of Millenials choosing to just opt out and lead transient lives.



Kid lives out of van, California too expensive

 

Most millennials are finding out that their liberals arts college degree is worth about a much as toilet paper. They come out of college with massive student loans and end up working in restaurants or Starbucks.

 

http://www.collegeranker.com/liberal-arts-degree-jobs/

 

Notice it's funded by the college's themselves. Yet someone like me, that has no college degree frequently makes more than $100k with overtime.

 

That there is a significant rate of return from these degrees is obvious. You'd perhaps know "I don't have a degree and I've done well" isn't much of an argument if you had one of those degrees...

 

If I had one of those degrees I would have been paying off student loans into my 30's. Instead I retired out of the military in my 30's and have been working in manufacturing ever since. I'm what's known as a tool and die maker...my employer calls me a prototype engineer even though I don't have a degree.

 

Lots of "I" there. You forgot the quote that you were responding to: one that recognises overall rates of return. We can always refer to outliers, but the truth is simple: these degrees are good investments.

 

Young adults living with their parents hits a 75-year high

The research echoes findings from the Pew Research Center earlier this year, which found that 32.1 percent of 18- to 34-year-olds lived at their parents’ homes in 2014, exceeding the 31.6 percent of young adults who were married or living with a partner in their own household. The last decade hasn’t been kind to America’s youngest generation of adults.​

 

Comprehensive Land Use Planning is mostly responsible for the lack of housing. The nimby's also share the blame.

 

Or there could just be too many people in some places, and not enough open space. Unless you want to completely build over every last remaining natural area that still offers any open space or scenic beauty in these places.

 

That's silly, we can always build up instead of out.

 

But it costs substantially more.

I've seen 5-story commercial office buildings, with stacked parking garages, that would be much nicer to live in than typical 1-level apartments. Not surprisingly the rent price is also a lot higher too. (and this in an area where the vacant land costs as much as the new construction price of the building)

Actually when you go from 2 levels to 3 levels, the construction cost ups exponentially, because of all the supporting weight and structural integrity issues that need to be addressed. Although, interestingly, to go from 4 to 5 levels there's not that much difference in cost.

Unless wealthy parents are footing the bill, or these adults are young professionals, they're likely not going to be able to afford renting in a high rise apartment building. Although I'd love for you to be able to prove me wrong.

 

Instead of becoming entangled in a debate about capitalism, economics and social policies, instead consider what the president of a state builders association told me in a private interview last year. The state is a really nice northeastern state where there is currently more forested land than there was in 1720, because thousands of rural farms were abandoned and wooded over in a few centuries. I was concerned that this particular state had about 10,000 home buyers a year were seeking affordable homes, yet only 1276 homes were built in the entire state.

By the way, when I reference "affordable homes," I do not mean for the poor, I mean homes which are affordable to people earning what the average American family earns in a year, which according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics is about $67,521, which I believe is kind of high, because it is raised a bit by the very high incomes since it is an average. The poverty level in the USA is set so artificially low, there is even no point including data about that nor discussing the impact upon housing--they are screwed pretty much sums it up. Now what I personally consider affordable housing is houses which can house a family of four, (master plus two spare bedrooms and 1.5 baths, living, dining and kitchen rooms; all for under $300,000., which I consider too expensive, but which I refuse to debate so I will keep it too high.

The builders' association, besides citing cost of materials, says the main issue is the disinclination of towns with ample developable land to issue building permits, and when they do, they limit the housing to mini-mansions, (homes over $400,000 with large lots.) They do this becaeor schooling and modest social skills, 2) increase in taxes to fund all the road upgrades, school, police and fire expansion, and all of the other infrastructure which accompanies a significant immigration, 3) many rural and semi-rural towns are controlled by the same connected families and power wheels for generations, and they do not want newcomers upsetting the apple cart they like and control. So, what do the builders do to get permits, when they can find the labor, materials and land to build upon, and when the towns give the green light? They build multi-family housing, like condos and townhouses, so they can fit and sell as many units as possible on the postage size lots they have to work with, or they build mini-mansions which always seem to find buyers who want to escape the cities, and are willing to pay over $400,000 and much more to secure. That is why there are so many millions of Americans without single family homes, which is the best choice for a stable, healthy society.

So, this particular state, which had at least enough people in authority with some morals, called a special study group at the state house. One of the participants was s the Treasurer of a town with a lot of undeveloped land. She said everything I pointed out above--in short, the failure of tens of thousands of towns, townships, whatever you want to call them all over the country who refuse to issue more than a trickle of building permits. Now I had hoped that this particular state, having public testimony about what had to be done--the towns FORCED by state law to open up development would begin happening. How naive and unthinking I was! Nothing of the kind has occurred, and in fact the housing shortage is now worse and epidemic all over the USA and other nations as well. The reason? Think about it--the state legislatures are comprised of elected representatives of the very towns which refuse development permits. The political system cannot solve this problem unless it changes, or the morals of the representatives change, which is highly improbable. Want a laugh? That guy from MIcrosoft, Gates, he has plans to build 26,000 or so houses outside of Phoenix, Arizona! Can you imagine being so stupid and so amoral as to build in an area with serious water shortage and extremely high heat? It is insane to build in so many marginal areas, like lowlands which require sump pumps, for example, or deserts, when there is so much undeveloped land in temperate climate states. If any of it is controlled by oligarchs who bought up a watershed, lets say the Nebraska one by Ted Turner, tens of thousands of acres, then those kind of parcels should be seized by government, and used for housing. A "great" nation which cannot adequately house, feed, educate and employ its hundreds of millions of people is what?

 

The whole Rust Belt region of U.S., which is gigantic, has relatively low home prices and even many abandoned homes that are falling apart. But economic opportunities are limited in these places with not many good jobs. In fact during the 2007 to 2011 Recession, Michigan and Ohio suffered huge unemployment problems, worse than the rest of the country, and entire malls closed in Ohio and became abandoned.
So I suppose the question is why does economic opportunity seem to be so concentrated in certain areas?

 

We're seeing the tail end of an era of centralisation of opportunity in a handful of cities. Clever people have seen the writing on the wall, and are creating opportunities outside capital cities. They're also recognising that when your cost of living is dramatically reduced (as it so often is when you leave the cities), you don't actually need a wealth of opportunities.

 

America (and similar Western nations) can do all of the above .. the problem is that our nations have reached a critical mass of individuals who refuse to participate in the mutual obligation of securing these things. Providing the framework in which people can achieve self-reliance, is all any society can do. The rest is up to the individual.

You could provide twice what's provided today, and it will barely make a difference. This isn't a wealth problem, it's a people problem.

 

I believe that's true, but it is only half of the picture. Half of the coin, so to speak.
There are two different effects going on, at the same time. Your truth is not untrue; it is just not the entire truth.

 

I would agree that planning and development laws are a significant part of the problem. When the big spending members of your electorate want their unimpeded views and quiet streets, that's what you'll plan for.

Legal obstacles to multi-generational homes in urban and suburban areas, is a huge issue. It's outrageous that local authorities can be okay with a ****ing enormous 3000sqft house for a family of four, but opposed to two or three 800sqft homes on the same block.

 

Yes and no. It's understandable that some people in some areas do not want their cities to become overcrowded and still want to retain some open space. The problem to me seems to be overcrowding. Allowing them to build is not really going to solve the problem because these areas are already near their limit, and they will run out of space soon anyway. The traffic on roads in some areas is already really bad, and making it undesirable to live near major roads because of the noise.

One idea is to allow fourplexes on two adjacent home lots. (Or two separate four-plexes to be built on three adjacent home lots)

I think it's still important that there be some space, but four-plexes can maximize the available open space because people's home units are built on top of each other.

In a lot of areas where they are building new housing now, there is not enough available open space near the house, in my view. I think having open space immediately surrounding the homes is important.

This is probably a separate discussion for another thread.

Another idea is to start allowing large apartment blocks. But the problem with that is there is usually not enough available space for car parking. Large apartment blocks seem to work best in areas with excellent widespread public transportation where most of the people living there do not see a need for cars.

This may be difficult for many people to believe but there are many areas where people in the suburbs are resistant to apartment blocks and good public transportation because they do not want too many low income people to move there, because of the crime rates and how it affects the public schools. There is usually a racial component to this.

But ironically, without good public transportation, when large numbers of poor people pack into concentrated housing areas, then it causes parking and traffic problems.

 

Yes, you and Crank have responses with which I agree. There has been too much centralization of production, both physical products and services. There are too many monopolies too. The urban planners will tell you that cities cannot maintain their infrastructure. So, we all agree that the older rust bucket cities must be renovated, but kept moderately sized so they can afford to maintain themselves, once enough middle class people are residents and have decent incomes. How will this be accomplished I wonder??? One major problem is culture. I, as a very liberal northeasterner with post graduate education who was raised in Italian culture would NEVER live in the Midwest or South because those are Anglo-Saxon (Germanic) individualistic conservative cultures which do not value community over individual rights. Why would anyone move from say Rhode Island to Missouri, which has the largest number of mobile homes in the country? Why would anyone from Massachusetts move to Ohio, which for some bizarre reason became a red state and now has a horrid anti-abortion government? Why would any Americans vote for the lowlife amoral politicians that now controls so many states and so why would educated well-informed people, and the companies they would be working for move to the red states? You know, Anthropologists will tell you that people will go to great lengths to protect and maintain their cultures, (their values let's say.) So, let's admit there has never been a "United" States of America, only a federation of states for economic and protective interests, but states with entirely different cultures. There is no way this geographic entity called the USA can ever exchange enough population internally without either cultural anomie or cultural change. A case in point is Florida, which was a slave state wasteland in the Civil War, an unabashed discriminatory state in the 19th and early 20th century, conservative, then in the 20th century became Democratic, with a lot of liberals coming in from New York, New Jersey and the more affluent states in the Midwest (they mostly moved to the Gulf coast of Florida, while the northerners moved onto the Atlantic shore.) Now Florida has become an extremist fascist state because of one man who was elected by an extremely small margin, just over 37000 votes in a population of 12 million. This state, which gets a lot of media attention about lots of northerners moving there is not culturally sustainable. It is no longer cheap, it has catastrophically poor and expensive property insurance So many large corporations will not move there for the simple reason they could not relocate a large EDUCATED and WELL INFORMED and LIBERAL workforce with the less developed people in thei red states. The Midwest I would at least forgive for being devastated by industrialism which bled them dry and left them with rusty ugly cities with insufficient middle class income to sustain attractive lifestyles. I have lived in Virginia, and except for the area adjacent to DC where a lot of northerners moved and which are liberal areas, a lot of the state is still secretly fighting the civil war, (culturally I mean.) I have lived in Florida, which used to be tolerable until about 2016 when so much anger and frustration rose up from the swamps and conservatism grabbed the state by the throat. I have lived in Rhode Island, which was spectacularly beautiful but which became so over-populated and so expensive that it is no longer a potential location for the middle class, (New Yorker's vacation in RI and a lot of good homes on scenic land was purchased in the south; and more affluent people in Massachusetts bought a lot of houses in northern RI because the homes in Mass were much more expensive and it is commutable to Boston.) Now I live in Connecticut, thankfully a liberal state with decent moral values, except I live in a pocket of the state where Trumpism has contaminated a lot of people and they gleefully drink the Kool Aid while believing stupid things and being hateful to minorities and immigrants. Basically, people of working age will move to or stay in places where they can secure or maintain decent employment, but I think that the days of concentrated employment in major cities is no longer sustainable and will mutate. All that said, none of this matters, because the Earth is grossly over-populated by about 8 billion, when it should be around 5 billion for psychological, social and economic sustainability. There are, and will continue to be, far too many humans competing for jobs, air, housing, employment, water, space, contentment, peace, safety, recreation, food.... you name it. Ever see what happens when researchers place too many rats in a box? No wonder society and our civilization is coming apart. We need a mass die-off or else this planet is doomed, and it is doomed sooner than later.

 

Well drafted response which for me highlights the problem--private enterprise being expected to solve endemic population, labor and housing issues, which only government can solve. But, we as a people have been so indoctrinated with private enterprise being the key to all, there really isn't hope, is there. There are very large areas of California which could be used for housing, but where would the residents work? Industry and services have been too concentrated, so cities have become overly-expensive, over-populated, over-taxed, unsustainable, and in the case of L. A., cesspits. People have been forced by economic opportunity or the lack thereof, to migrate from low-opportunity areas to higher ones, and the gross over-population of the planet, and especially the southern hemisphere countries, will cause the demographic shift to continue north, into cities of course, where jobs might be secured. This exacerbates the housing crisis. You know, the more I consider the problem, the less hope I have that any of this can be solved to preserve our civil democratic society. Unless there is a mass die-off, and city government begins to destroy old empty buildings and build nice housing, and unless there is enough work, (which becomes less and less likely given automation), and we can go on and on with unless's.....

 

I have read through several of your posts. I think big picture you have presented a basic understanding of the housing issues, but this statement illustrates something I think you need to consider in your thinking. I say this with all due respect, but there is an heir of entitlement in your world view. No city is going to build you a brand new house and give it to you for whatever you think you should have to pay. It just isn't happening. What a lot of cities and states and even the federal government already are doing is to help make home ownership a little more affordable, particularly if you buy an older home and renovate it yourself so they don't have to tear it down one day. I bought a perfectly fine 40 year old house on a great deal because nobody wanted it because it was 40 years old and have put money into it, and will have it paid off in a couple years. Even if I hadn't received an inheritance I applied to the mortgage, I would still have had the thing paid off in 14 years. I have had to put money into fixing it up, but have never looked the gift horse in the mouth when I could get a few hundred here and there in rebates or credits. You may have to stand in line a year or two to get your money, but my city will write big checks in forgivable rehab loans if you buy property in some of the more aged parts of the city for new roofs, new windows, new AC/heat systems, new siding. You just have to use the money for the things they say it can be used for and prove to them you did in fact pay it with receipts and your no-payment loan goes away after 5 years. If you really wants and need a home, you may need to reign in your expectations. You can survive with Formica countertops instead of granite ones until you can afford to buy them. You can patch nail holes and paint walls. You can change out electrical outlets and light fixtures. You can rip out carpet and put down laminate. You can landscape. There is a lot of value out there that can be yours. It is never going to come from any government just handing you something brand new because you want it.

 

Agree. Apartments in high density areas are not the answer.

My personal opinion is that it's our culture of demanding private homes for every individual, couple, or small family. It's an outrageous demand, and unique in the world. That's where most of the problems come from.

 

Could part of the problem stem from destruction of the family?

I had an economic theory on that phenomena here: online job ads have forced professional workers to become nomadic