"At the same time, the Institute for Family Studies has found that when asked to visualize their ideal home, nearly 80% of respondents choose “detached single‑family housing.”"
First of all, if government pays huge money to subsidize single family detached housing, and also makes laws so it's the main thing available, so of course people are gonna get used to it and tell themselves they like it.
Secondly, there is a difference between people liking detached single family homes and being free to build them. That's awesome. And for their being laws by government saying "YOU MUST BUILD SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED HOMES. You can buy land here, but we will centrally plan this out and tell you exactly what you can build there. Only single family detached homes!"
Third, if we want people to live and work and grow up and age in their towns, then a town based primarily around single family detached houses won't serve them well. That low density approach will force a spread out layout which forces driving. That in turn makes life much lower quality for kids and elderly. Elderly also may not need or even want detached single family homes, they may prefer smaller spaces, townhouses, apartment buildings, maybe a tiny house built on the same lot as their family. Many of these things are actually currently outlawed. Is it any surprise that people move away during different time periods in their life? Current zoning policies are very anti-family and anti-local living.
Keep pounding away at private equity. Nevada is in the process of limiting corporate purchases of housing. I immediately thought of shell companies so I hope legislators have thought of that too.
The response to Wolfers doesn't make much sense. Suppose a job is initially being done by two Americans. Two possibilities for what happens next:
1. Jose comes and does the job for cheaper. It's still been done by two people, but only one American.
2. Tech progress means one person can do the job that used to require two. The job is now being done by one American.
In both scenarios , you went from two Americans with a job to one American with a job. If the loss of an American job really worries you in the first case, but not the second, that does call out for some kind of explanation. (The explanation needn't be racism! But there should be some story.)
Boomer and silent generation homeowners view that young generations are at fault for not having a home and openly believe that housing needs to be more expensive for young generations, not less
"At the same time, the Institute for Family Studies has found that when asked to visualize their ideal home, nearly 80% of respondents choose “detached single‑family housing.”"
First of all, if government pays huge money to subsidize single family detached housing, and also makes laws so it's the main thing available, so of course people are gonna get used to it and tell themselves they like it.
Secondly, there is a difference between people liking detached single family homes and being free to build them. That's awesome. And for their being laws by government saying "YOU MUST BUILD SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED HOMES. You can buy land here, but we will centrally plan this out and tell you exactly what you can build there. Only single family detached homes!"
Third, if we want people to live and work and grow up and age in their towns, then a town based primarily around single family detached houses won't serve them well. That low density approach will force a spread out layout which forces driving. That in turn makes life much lower quality for kids and elderly. Elderly also may not need or even want detached single family homes, they may prefer smaller spaces, townhouses, apartment buildings, maybe a tiny house built on the same lot as their family. Many of these things are actually currently outlawed. Is it any surprise that people move away during different time periods in their life? Current zoning policies are very anti-family and anti-local living.
Missing here is that there are plenty of anti-greenbelt YIMBYs. They’re a big part of the coalition and a reason for its success.
Keep pounding away at private equity. Nevada is in the process of limiting corporate purchases of housing. I immediately thought of shell companies so I hope legislators have thought of that too.
The response to Wolfers doesn't make much sense. Suppose a job is initially being done by two Americans. Two possibilities for what happens next:
1. Jose comes and does the job for cheaper. It's still been done by two people, but only one American.
2. Tech progress means one person can do the job that used to require two. The job is now being done by one American.
In both scenarios , you went from two Americans with a job to one American with a job. If the loss of an American job really worries you in the first case, but not the second, that does call out for some kind of explanation. (The explanation needn't be racism! But there should be some story.)
Boomer and silent generation homeowners view that young generations are at fault for not having a home and openly believe that housing needs to be more expensive for young generations, not less
WTF. Apparently none of the Boomers you know have children.
You be shocked