yes that's the idea, reduce the violence of the regulatory state to improve the quality of life of citizens

Going on big time here in Canada letting developers tear down old houses and build 4 plexes and 8 plexes

I dispute that my quality of life would improve in this example.

I haven't lived in Austin for a while, but did live there most of my life. I hadn't heard about those zoning changes, but when I lived there, there was a very strict impervious cover rule for any lot. I'm wondering if that has been tossed aside, of if you still have to adhere to that if you split your lot. It would make a difference. I haven't been able to find it with a quick google search.

from what i understand it was a two-fer change over the last 2-3 years. they eliminated parking requirements, so that half the space isn't taken up by parking lots allowing for more multiunit buildings, and they changed all "single family" zoning to tri-unit zoning allowing for 3 housing units to be placed on a single family lot.

the 3 unit zoning thing i think just went into effect at the start of this year, so the downward rent trend may continue.

That will absolutely transform the neighborhood I lived in. I'm not sure for the better, either.

If I had owned a home and all the sudden the houses on each side of me became triplexes, I definitely would move.

Adding more units specifically meant for renters to a traditionally owner-occupied single-family neighborhood never improves it for the better. This isn't exactly a controversial take.

Owner-occupied duplexes and triplexes are a close second to a single family home, but those eventually just become part of a rental portfolio anyway. 90% of our Milwaukee units are duplexes because Milwaukee just has a million of them. We got rid of all but one of the single family homes because they attract the absolute worst kind of renters around here and are simply not profitable to operate.

Home ownership has never been higher, so we need to just keep that needle moving upward and figure out how to build houses on the lower end of the price scale.

"Affordable housing" is just as expensive to operate, if not moreso than higher end units. Those low rents don't cover the operating expense and you end up with broken down slums after a few turnovers. Unfortunately, many poor people kinda bring everything they touch down to their level. It's not an easy fix in a world where money doesn't grow on trees.

And your previous house would be worth a lot more because land is worth a lot more if development is allowed.

So... Win win win win for everyone involved

Imagine an 8 plex going up beside you The BC government is allowing that come July . I have done a bunch of tear downs and put up duplexes and triplexes and 4 plexes work on corner lots but I can not imagine buying a nice older bungalow fixing it up only to have an 8 plex go up beside you

If everyone owns the home he lives in the economy stagnates a lot more, because moving to follow career opportunities becomes far more expensive, especially if rates go up (so you give up on a low rate mortgage to re-buy at far worse rates).

You know which countries have 80%+ owner occupied housing? Romania, Bulgaria, Moldova, Montenegro... You get the picture.

Italy is higher than the USA, do you really think that's a sign of economic health?

Switzerland? 55%

I dunno. I'm hesitant to argue that it's not for the greater good. It's purely a selfish issue. Having moved not once, but twice in the last two years because my next door/upstairs neighbor turned their property into an airbnb party house. Moving sucks when you think you've found a home, but it isn't. I'm pretty sensitive to this sort of thing.

it would suck

I don't know the nuance of any differences, but California recently passed a similar law.

https://www.ezplans.com/blog/2024/01...in-california/

There's probably a little bit more to that story. Switzerland has very weird rules surrounding mortgages, for instance.

It's relatively easy to buy and sell real estate in the USA. I'd like to think if we determined that economic mobility took a hit because of high home ownership, we'd be flexible enough to address it with legislation.

Or people would just rent.

This happened to a friend of mine. Older guy who lived next door in an old big two story house died, his relatives sold the house and they tore it down and put up like two 4-plexes full of college students. She wasn't too happy.

i don't want to detract from your personal experience as a slum lord, but if the people didn't want to live near other people they can certainly move out of the CITY of 1million people in austin.

you aren't, you keep subsidizing ownership.

why isn't rent deductible from income taxes but interest on mortgage up to a sizable amount are for example? why are mortgage rates subsidized by federal guarantees and not rent for decent income workers?

I understand that at the gut level I really do.

at some age (might differ for different people) you just don't want change anymore, especially if you have made it in some way, according to your standards. you are content enough with things going on like that till you die. that's why you want ultra Nazi zoning, 0 inflation, and living work+free on the work of others for decades.

and you think that's a god given right.

But you don't ****ing own your neighborhood. you don't own the future of other younger people.

and I speak as a middle aged real estate owner.

we can't strangle young people to preserve some privilege and think nothing is going to happen.

those are the people driving the buses which your kids take to come home from school. or if you are elder, those are the guys changing your bed in hospitals.

you want to force upon them a one hour commute because in that way there will be less traffic when you go to the bridge or poker tournament

There shouldn't be rental party houses, and they are illegal in most places already. Better enforcement and harsher penalties are obviously needed. Fines as large as the assessed property value should fix that problem.

But, the deal is, there's probably a LOT of people that bought their homes many years ago because it was a nice neighborhood with nice neighbors that probably wanted the same thing. Then all of the sudden, poof, it's gone. And everyone that probably made a big life decision to be where they are, are now screwed.

Again, I don't necessarily hate the idea. In time it probably works itself out.

But it DOES affect a lot of people negatively.

Second Boeing whistle-blower dead in as many months

https://www.newsweek.com/boeing-whis...20months%20ago.

Boeing blower Clintoned?

Who would have thought.

The definition is 'Protest' is not rooted in 'Free Speech'... it's not even related.
Speech are words and Protests are actions.

Screwed? they made a **** ton of money on their house lol.

You would have a point if we were talking development that reduced values significantly, but we are talking the opposite

The more ownership citizens have the more skin in the game they have, and it makes for a better country. That's part of the reason why USA is #1 and old Europe isn't.