Purchasing Housing without the land

In the first case, the unfortunate people who don't get to live on the waterfront are compensated because they pay less for their housing. In your scenario, they pay the same price the people who get the better spots pay.

edited 15th Sep '12 2:53:51 PM by EdwardsGrizzly

<><

Okay so, let's go through your example

Land Has Float Price

Beachfront property costs a million dollars Desert property costs a hundred thousand

Land Does not have Float Price

Beachfront property could cost a million dollars but would not go higher (since the free market price would have been a million dollars) Desert property costs up to a hundred thousand

---

Depending on the method of provisioning, in all cases, people in the latter case pay less money overall. Not seeing a problem. Why is it important more money is spent?

edited 15th Sep '12 2:56:29 PM by breadloaf

Sorry, but you are still wrong. The government only gets to set the prices for land it wants, and then only by invoking the doctrine of eminent domain — that is, saying "We must have this land for this project which must be built for the greater good of the community as a whole. We will pay you X amount per acre." And even in that case, they are required to offer a price near the current fair market value.

You stated that zoning and building restrictions directly set the price of land. That is not true.

...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.

@ Madrugada/deboss

Sorry, I think that my attempt to expand the discussion to be all of North America requires I have more specific wording then to each set of laws in our respective countries.

Canadian government can just take your land and they don't have to give a crap, so long as it is for the good of the country. The United States is more restrictive.

However, it doesn't really matter. United States government can still buy up land and then afterward declare land they own to no longer be bought/sold. So it becomes a moot point.

Also, it would be helpful if people actually read my post carefully and all my ideas rather than saying things that I specifically spelled out. Government isn't seizing all land. The idea is phased in over a period of 30-50 years, so that the government slowly buys up the land and then making land price disappear.

You're still talking about seizing it by eminent domain, not regulating open market prices.

Your statement was, and again, I quote:

.

It does not. Now you're saying you meant something completely different — namely that the government can seize land at a price they set. While it's true that they can, and do, do that, it has jack-all nothing to do with by-laws, zoning laws and building restrictions.

edited 15th Sep '12 3:06:14 PM by Madrugada

...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.

@breadloaf: That's a direct contradiction of your original post, in which you state:

So a $600,000 house in the desert costs exactly the same as a $600,000 house on the beach, yet the house on the beach is a much better place to live. So they guy who gets forced to buy in the desert gets screwed.

On the other hand, when land prices float, the guy who buys in the desert gets to buy his house quite a bit cheaper than the guy who buys on the beach. Thus, both get a fair deal: one gets the beach, while the other has money left over for something else he likes.

edited 15th Sep '12 3:05:31 PM by EdwardsGrizzly

<><

That is actually completely false. Canadian law, like US law, requires that the government pay the fair market value (or even more in some cases) for any land it expropriates. (Source)

edited 15th Sep '12 3:11:02 PM by EdwardsGrizzly

<><

@ Madrugada

Well I'll give you an example. People wanted to increase rent prices in Waterloo beyond the fairly 400-600/month range for students. The local government told them no and then used zoning laws to bulldoze old houses and put in medium-rise apartments. This kept rent prices at the 400-600 range while increased available housing.

I'm saying government can do whatever it needs/wants to serve the needs of the people and free market prices can go out the window if needed. They determined that the float price of 400-600 was a good range and kept it at that because they felt students couldn't afford more and they didn't want greater student housing sprawl.

Another example, Canadian military base was built over native land, and they just did it. A later lawsuit about the suffering it caused got some cash settlement but of course, I'm not suggesting the government do any such dastardly thing.

I'm SUGGESTING eminent domain because it's the best way to acquire land fairly. However, deboss stated that the government cannot set land prices. That is wrong. Government can do whatever the constituents want to happen.

@ Edwards

Okay, clearly that statement was highly ambiguous to you.

You stated that people are willing to pay more for a beachfront, therefore more money would be put up for such property whereas less money is put up for a desert house. Therefore, someone is obviously willing to pay more for beachfront property than someone else, there is more money put up for purchasing a house there. If the free market remained, which you are adamant about, then someone will put up $700 000 to build a house there and a guy who put up $600 000 wouldn't get the house. But whatever money is spent is put toward material/labour and not land.

edited 15th Sep '12 3:12:37 PM by breadloaf

That statement was crystal clear, and does not solve the problem. Now, you are saying that the guy who gets the beach house pays more, but also gets a much fancier/larger house. Meanwhile, the guy in the desert pays less, but lives in a shack. That hasn't changed the situation at all. The guy in the desert still gets screwed over relative to what he pays.

<><

@ Edward

What? I feel like, you are making up your own model in your head and then arguing against it and presenting it as mine.

Why does he live in a shack?

Actually, I think there might also be a difference of philosophy here. If I get a better house at the same price under this scheme and rich people get even better houses... I'm not sure why I care about relative price difference while everyone is getting way more for less cost?

@ Madrugada

Government can seize land, if they're total dicks, it's not always perfectly legal but it happens. I've only suggested it has happened and therefore it can be done which you indicated that somehow because the law says "no" that it doesn't happen. While I would prefer that to be true, it is not.

Further, by-laws and zoning restrictions heavily affect pricing. I am unsure how you might be suggesting they are not. But then I'm not sure if that is what you are suggesting so I'll just leave it alone.

Lastly, if local government wants to reshape prices they can do so very easily. The simplest way is for permit handling.

Developer: "I'd like to build a house"
Gov: "What value of house?"
Developer: "Blah"
Gov: "No permit for you."

Happens all the time.

edited 15th Sep '12 3:40:01 PM by breadloaf

Because the government has decreed that housing prices shall be lower in his part of the country, and since under your system the price of housing is determined entirely by the money that was put into building the housing lower prices = lower quality.

Basically, you are acting like land value is just an arbitrary thing society invents, when in reality, some places are less desirable to live in, for reasons that have nothing to do with what is built there, and in a fair system people who live in those places should pay less for the same quality house than people who live in better places.

But really, I have no need to convince you of this, and I have stuff I need to get done, so if you insist on believing in this theory, I'm just going to drop it at this point.

edited 15th Sep '12 3:49:40 PM by EdwardsGrizzly

<><

Happens all the time? Maybe where you live. Around here, they don't even ask how much the value is going to be during the permitting process. They may ask to see the plans if there are questions about construction method or design that could affect surrounding properties (like building an earthen-berm house on a lot where it will increase water runoff onto neighboring properties during rain storms, or something like that) or for commercial buildings, to be sure that they meet code for access and signage and parking and such, but they don't give a rat's ass what the value of the structure is in deciding whether to permit it or not. You want to buy the 48x80 lot next to mine in my little 40K-to-60K-house filled neighborhood and build a million-dollar mansion on it, they'll be happy to let you, as long as you leave the required clearances between your building's wall and my property line. By the same token, if you want to buy down in the ritzy neighborhood near the yacht club and throw up a 35k cottage, the city won't stop you. The neighbors will be almighty unhappy, but the city won't care.

edited 15th Sep '12 8:48:27 PM by Madrugada

...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.

I'm not sure about that part, because it can affect negatively the property values around. I know there are some areas in Paris where your building's facade MUST look like other buildings' facade.

I've heard similar — a local Council can put down whatever restrictions they like for Planning Permission over here*

, especially if it is Listed...

edited 16th Sep '12 5:11:22 AM by Greenmantle

Keep Rolling On

One rationalisation for this is... Britain is kind of cramped when it comes to available land to build on. And, the reluctance to building on greenfield sites? Isn't helping. However, building unrestrained on brownfield? Would soon mean fire and safety hazards... or worse.

Not that it doesn't stop useful development also occurring by bogging it down in red tape.

edited 16th Sep '12 6:25:57 AM by Euodiachloris

All true — does remind me of something local, though. A developer of new estate not too far from here has applied for planning permission for more houses (on greenfield) — and they haven't finished those they've got to build!*

edited 16th Sep '12 6:21:25 AM by Greenmantle

Keep Rolling On

It's rare I agree with Grizzly on economic issues but yes-this strikes me as absolutely ridiculous.

Location, location, location. I mean, the first thing that comes to mind is public school districts, or proximity to commercial enterprises (like being able to walk to your grocery store). Location is a marketable asset after all.

edited 16th Sep '12 11:42:08 PM by TheyCallMeTomu

Exorbitant prices for particular locations seems rather useless. Does it mean more people get houses? Nope. Rather, it means rich people are the ones who get to live there. What's bad about poorer people being able to afford it? I think it's a fairer way to ration the available housing.

I vowed, and so did you: Beyond this wall- we would make it through.

It's simple supply and demand — if more people want to live in a location then there are houses available, prices will be higher then in locations people don't want to live.

In fact, supply and demand can work on a larger scale too, if there aren't enough houses for sale, prices will be higher since there are less houses available on the market*

.

Keep Rolling On

Essentially, yes. Would you rather live in a beach-front house, or live in an equally well built house next to the local landfill?

"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian

Well, if the land is owned by the government, then the government basically gets to decide who gets the choicest cut of land. Now, if in the process of buying a house for the first time, you also get the right to determine who you sell that house (and thus, the right to live there) to, then that becomes an asset in itself. Also, you have to consider rent.

I'm sorry but this "land exists for everyone" idea just doesn't work. The economics aren't sound unless you're switching entirely to a control economy, and even I'm not okay with that.

Quite. There is a lot of potential for Corruption, methinks.

Keep Rolling On

Isn't this like saying that if we have private healthcare that there is no way it won't be a corrupt provisioning of healthcare to government friends? Certainly this is strictly controlled and doled out in every country but USA.

I can receive relatively superior healthcare in USA... if I pay 15 000 a year for a gold plated healthcare plan. Or I get a decent one for 7000 a year. Or I get a crappy one for 3000. Or I go without. But in a universal healthcare system, like Canada, everybody doles out 2300 no matter your risk group. That is unfair to people who are less at risk for health problems. But, despite how unfair it is, the total money they pay out is strictly less than the crappiest healthcare plan in USA and they receive far superior care. Only those who are super rich lose out (which is something like less than 1% of the population).

In the same sense, if housing were provisioned in a non-price system (I honestly am quite confused by your example grizzly but as your retort is apparently "You don't get anything, I'm going to give up because explaining my point is a waste of time!", I don't know how to discuss it) then the government has control over provisioning of housing. For me, the expectation is to smooth out poverty to increase employment opportunities for everyone. Therefore I'd try to dole out housing so as to avoid "poor spots" in neighbourhoods.

Also, I feel like many here are pushing forward American urban planning problems as effective solutions or wanted situations. For instance, "What about location of schools?". You like having dementedly different funding for each school? Canada's schools are strictly equally funded across the province. But I guess if WANT poor schools and rich schools, you can have that? I'm not sure what advantage this is giving.

You can talk about beach front or water front property but the reality is that there is very little of this and frankly, to screw up 90% of house prices to benefit half a percent of the population who can afford these multimillion dollar homes seems idiotic. What do I give a crap if poor people are suddenly getting awesome housing and I'm making lots of money? I don't go to buy a large estate to laugh at the poor who can never hope to purchase the same home. I rather just have a bigger damn house.

@ Grizzly

I'm just really unsure what your example is supposed to mean at all. You wanted a free market provisioning system. I suggested one. Then you turn around and complain that it is a free market provisioning system. What is it that you want?

Look, you go want that desert land and you spend $300 000. You get a nice large home. You spend that same $300 000 on the beach front property, you get that place. Everybody gets a nicer, higher quality home. That is strictly true.

So your complaint is "but the relative price paid doesn't reflect the location quality". But you do agree that the HOUSE itself is of higher quality? So your complaint is that you want to pay more for your house for less quality even if you chose to live in the desert strictly so that you can "feel good" about not being "relatively" screwed?

What is the advantage here? More money spent on absolutely nothing?

edited 17th Sep '12 11:37:57 PM by breadloaf

People don't just buy houses just for the house itself? The Location matters a great deal — and what about the extreme likelyhood of Corruption?

Keep Rolling On

It's not just beachfront. Almost everyone who buys a house does so based on where the house is located.

Can't drive, live in the city, need to be close to the subway station? Location matters. Love to garden and want to make sure you have enough land to garden on? Location matters. Want to make sure you're near your elderly parents? Location matters. Don't want your kids living next to a garbage dump? Location matters. Need to be close to work so that you can commute? Location matters.

Location is in fact the number one thing people consider when buying property. You can't divorce housing from location.

Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick