Quote
1. You are assuming that if new housing is built, students would be able to afford that new housing which is not the case. New housing would mostly be gobbled up by investors and the remainder would be split between first time home buyers, and professionals currently living with roommates. Just because new housing is built, doesn't mean students who cannot even afford to be in school to begin with, will suddenly be able to afford said new housing.
This is a good idea, it just doesn't solve this specific problem . Smaller developers would benefit from this because the larger ones are the only ones currently powerful enough to convince government officials to approve their projects. Without control, these corrupt politicians would lose their ability to collect kickbacks from developers.
2. Eliminating rent control will allows rents to go up. This would open the door for smaller investors to build rental property but in no way would that help students be able to afford the rent. Developers would build a ton of luxury because it is more profitable. Many luxury units are sold to foreign investors who hold them like money in a bank.
3. So there would be federal money given to the state to build student housing, and that housing would then included with the normal price of tuition? This in theory is good as long as tuition does not go up to account for the room and board.
In capitalism, things are built for profit and not built for use so building more does not mean more usage. All of your solutions are centered around building more housing. It doesn't solve the actual problem.
The problem isn't unique to California and is playing out in every desirable area, especially the more desirable metropolitan areas. This is the same sort of mindset that has led to 55 milllion vacant homes in China but Chinese investors are still buying empty homes in the US.
This is a good idea, it just doesn't solve this specific problem . Smaller developers would benefit from this because the larger ones are the only ones currently powerful enough to convince government officials to approve their projects. Without control, these corrupt politicians would lose their ability to collect kickbacks from developers.
2. Eliminating rent control will allows rents to go up. This would open the door for smaller investors to build rental property but in no way would that help students be able to afford the rent. Developers would build a ton of luxury because it is more profitable. Many luxury units are sold to foreign investors who hold them like money in a bank.
3. So there would be federal money given to the state to build student housing, and that housing would then included with the normal price of tuition? This in theory is good as long as tuition does not go up to account for the room and board.
In capitalism, things are built for profit and not built for use so building more does not mean more usage. All of your solutions are centered around building more housing. It doesn't solve the actual problem.
The problem isn't unique to California and is playing out in every desirable area, especially the more desirable metropolitan areas. This is the same sort of mindset that has led to 55 milllion vacant homes in China but Chinese investors are still buying empty homes in the US.
1. You're, wrongly, thinking that real estate developers aren't going to go ahead and rent the properties out. This influx of supply will bring down cost for all properties, meaning that college students would be able to purchase properties in different areas.
Also, I would love to eliminate regulations so everyone has an equal playing field when it comes to building. I don't want big businesses having a larger influence over building authorities licensing department just cause they're able to lobby with more funds.
2. Rent Control doesn't work, it just deters builders from building in certain areas if they must have a certain # of units be rent controlled.
3. No. That's not what I said at all. What I was stating was that State governments, who already contribute funds to local governments for different things, must set up an unfunded mandated to increase housing -- attached to current funding to local governments.
True, California is just in the news the most for it.
