The short-term living part lacks a bit of depth, here's my take inspired by what happened before 20th century:
When you got employed young somewhere, maybe became an apprentice, the master or the firm provided you shelter always. One key element obviously was that living quarters were close to the site where work was done.
This was true for most forms of work so a great part of the rent problem was solved by this. And let's face it, most temporary living is due to young people learning in a uni or just starting work, so things largely overlap here.
I like this concept and vision, although I feel like its realization is contingent upon a massive reevaluation of some sacred cows and a fundamental shift in mindset. Caveating this with the admission that I am neither a finance nor a real-estate person, some random questions / thoughts this post prompted:
- Is there simply an irreconcilable conflict of values between housing-as-investment and community building? The conventional wisdom is that, through increasing property values, people are incentivized to invest in their communities, and that since the value of my property is contingent upon the condition of your property and vice versa, we are all incentivized to build "strong communities". I think this view is fundamentally mistaken, and that, when investment income is the ends, "strong community" in terms of actual meaningful human connection is always, at best, relegated to being the means, or a secondary effect of an value-maximizing investment. To the extent that people look at housing as an investment vehicle, the only way to "realize" that investment is to LEAVE that community; you need to a) sell your house (maybe you can move to a smaller house available in your community, but often the mindset seems to buy a house in a zip code with decent schools, get them through high school, and then cash out and move somewhere cheaper - actually, it seems much of what we mean by "community" really has to do with cohorts of kids remaining together...), or b) die and leave your house to somebody who will probably then sell it. Investment usually ultimately requires leaving one's community. The point should be more of building up places you WANT to stay in.
- Changing this may have very positive impacts on the general visibility / appreciation / interaction with the elderly in our society generally? To the extent that elderly people leave communities to retire (cashing out) or represent people with fixed incomes who end up pressured to move as a result of not being able to afford rising property taxes and cost of living increases. Removing financial incentives/pressures to leave communities may result in more intergenerational mixing & access to extended family networks?
- If homeownership ceases to be a way to increase financial wealth / ticket OUT of a place, people may not want to bother with the risk / hassle of homeownership (eg, taxes, having to replace the septic tank or roof, etc) and decide they prefer renting or higher mobility options. unfortunately this will also remove the same incentives for landlords, and it would be interesting to see what the new equilibrium would be... the general cultural paradigm we are in is one of maximizing comfort and outsourcing / avoiding responsibility? I feel, at least short term on the other side of such reforms, homeownership would be looked at as "something that used to be a good investment but is no longer", instead of a virtue of owning private property / a vehicle for investing in communities we want to live, and that would potentially discourage homeownership?
- There seems to be general reserved awareness about how models like Airbnb drive up prices (which seems to be largely tempered by the fact that people generally like the one-dimensional sanitized / non-travel environment aspect of staying in Airbnbs), but I do not think many people appreciate the extent to which banks and companies like American Homes 4 Rent distort the market.
- Is the lesser of the two evils (and it very well could be) a much larger influence / proliferation of HOA-type entities (ie to locally set & enforce, among other things, occupancy-related / non-corporate entity conditions of ownership?
- Relatedly, do you see any promise in so-called "blockchain cities"? The crypto aspect seems to be a non-vital add-on, but at least to the extent that they represent groups of people willing to take some risk to try something new.
- Rising property taxes are a means of government revenue that will "need to be replaced" (if your the state), and I don't see governments doing much to kneecap property-values, even if there are good moral reasons for doing so?
Good writing!
The short-term living part lacks a bit of depth, here's my take inspired by what happened before 20th century:
When you got employed young somewhere, maybe became an apprentice, the master or the firm provided you shelter always. One key element obviously was that living quarters were close to the site where work was done.
This was true for most forms of work so a great part of the rent problem was solved by this. And let's face it, most temporary living is due to young people learning in a uni or just starting work, so things largely overlap here.
You had me at more concrete less abstract. Hell yes. We're drowning in abstractions, and it is beyond frustrating.
You seem to be quiet on substack are you anywhere else or just Twitter?
I like this concept and vision, although I feel like its realization is contingent upon a massive reevaluation of some sacred cows and a fundamental shift in mindset. Caveating this with the admission that I am neither a finance nor a real-estate person, some random questions / thoughts this post prompted:
- Is there simply an irreconcilable conflict of values between housing-as-investment and community building? The conventional wisdom is that, through increasing property values, people are incentivized to invest in their communities, and that since the value of my property is contingent upon the condition of your property and vice versa, we are all incentivized to build "strong communities". I think this view is fundamentally mistaken, and that, when investment income is the ends, "strong community" in terms of actual meaningful human connection is always, at best, relegated to being the means, or a secondary effect of an value-maximizing investment. To the extent that people look at housing as an investment vehicle, the only way to "realize" that investment is to LEAVE that community; you need to a) sell your house (maybe you can move to a smaller house available in your community, but often the mindset seems to buy a house in a zip code with decent schools, get them through high school, and then cash out and move somewhere cheaper - actually, it seems much of what we mean by "community" really has to do with cohorts of kids remaining together...), or b) die and leave your house to somebody who will probably then sell it. Investment usually ultimately requires leaving one's community. The point should be more of building up places you WANT to stay in.
- Changing this may have very positive impacts on the general visibility / appreciation / interaction with the elderly in our society generally? To the extent that elderly people leave communities to retire (cashing out) or represent people with fixed incomes who end up pressured to move as a result of not being able to afford rising property taxes and cost of living increases. Removing financial incentives/pressures to leave communities may result in more intergenerational mixing & access to extended family networks?
- If homeownership ceases to be a way to increase financial wealth / ticket OUT of a place, people may not want to bother with the risk / hassle of homeownership (eg, taxes, having to replace the septic tank or roof, etc) and decide they prefer renting or higher mobility options. unfortunately this will also remove the same incentives for landlords, and it would be interesting to see what the new equilibrium would be... the general cultural paradigm we are in is one of maximizing comfort and outsourcing / avoiding responsibility? I feel, at least short term on the other side of such reforms, homeownership would be looked at as "something that used to be a good investment but is no longer", instead of a virtue of owning private property / a vehicle for investing in communities we want to live, and that would potentially discourage homeownership?
- There seems to be general reserved awareness about how models like Airbnb drive up prices (which seems to be largely tempered by the fact that people generally like the one-dimensional sanitized / non-travel environment aspect of staying in Airbnbs), but I do not think many people appreciate the extent to which banks and companies like American Homes 4 Rent distort the market.
- Is the lesser of the two evils (and it very well could be) a much larger influence / proliferation of HOA-type entities (ie to locally set & enforce, among other things, occupancy-related / non-corporate entity conditions of ownership?
- Relatedly, do you see any promise in so-called "blockchain cities"? The crypto aspect seems to be a non-vital add-on, but at least to the extent that they represent groups of people willing to take some risk to try something new.
- Rising property taxes are a means of government revenue that will "need to be replaced" (if your the state), and I don't see governments doing much to kneecap property-values, even if there are good moral reasons for doing so?