City planners LOVE high density. Developers hate it and make friends on City Councils (former city planner here. lol) It's unbelievable. They make A LOT more money with large single family homes because old city building codes give a ton of tax development incentives, including almost paying nothing in taxes on profit.
@@dr_beardface totally false, a developer can build more units on a single piece of land without having to buy more land. High density is significantly more profitable as long as you have demand which we currently do. This is why the only thing profitable in large cities is high-density because the land is so expensive.
It isn't a scheme to address housing affordability. It is a scheme to get first homeowners into the market. They are two very different issues. Demand doesn't push prices up under these schemes because there is a sale price limit placed in the qualifying criteria. If you can afford an expensive house as a first home owner buyer you don't need a scheme to help you buy it..... Thus the limit kicks in.
I’m not aware of any limit mentioned in his proposal. He argued that median home prices have soared from $215k to over $400k in his CNBC interview, so I believe he thinks affordability is a factor and thus prices. Supply and demand does affect prices and 3% mortgages would cause more demand but doesn’t solve the supply issue, which is why I argue prices would continue to go up with this plan and that the plan misses a big part of the equation. As it is just a political proposal, there aren’t any actual numbers or limits mentioned. All I’m really saying is IF we have thousands of first time homebuyers approved with 3% mortgages without more supply hitting the market, this would undoubtedly cause prices to go up. So yes it will help get first time homebuyers on the market like you say but it will also lead to home prices going up higher and becoming even more unaffordable.
More homes and higher density is how you solve the housing shortage. City planners often like neither.
City planners LOVE high density. Developers hate it and make friends on City Councils (former city planner here. lol) It's unbelievable. They make A LOT more money with large single family homes because old city building codes give a ton of tax development incentives, including almost paying nothing in taxes on profit.
@@dr_beardface totally false, a developer can build more units on a single piece of land without having to buy more land. High density is significantly more profitable as long as you have demand which we currently do.
This is why the only thing profitable in large cities is high-density because the land is so expensive.
It isn't a scheme to address housing affordability. It is a scheme to get first homeowners into the market. They are two very different issues. Demand doesn't push prices up under these schemes because there is a sale price limit placed in the qualifying criteria. If you can afford an expensive house as a first home owner buyer you don't need a scheme to help you buy it..... Thus the limit kicks in.
I’m not aware of any limit mentioned in his proposal. He argued that median home prices have soared from $215k to over $400k in his CNBC interview, so I believe he thinks affordability is a factor and thus prices. Supply and demand does affect prices and 3% mortgages would cause more demand but doesn’t solve the supply issue, which is why I argue prices would continue to go up with this plan and that the plan misses a big part of the equation. As it is just a political proposal, there aren’t any actual numbers or limits mentioned. All I’m really saying is IF we have thousands of first time homebuyers approved with 3% mortgages without more supply hitting the market, this would undoubtedly cause prices to go up. So yes it will help get first time homebuyers on the market like you say but it will also lead to home prices going up higher and becoming even more unaffordable.