• teejay@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      San Diego: City of small “starter” houses built 60+ years ago that haven’t been repaired or upgraded since. Expect asbestos, no insulation in the walls, rusted and cracked cast iron plumbing, failing and dangerous wiring, crumbling exterior stucco, water damage in the bathrooms, dry rot in the exterior wood, all for well over $1mm. Oh and your nextdoor neighbor has been living there since the 70s and is paying about $80/mo in property taxes.

        • ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          4 months ago

          They still mad about the permit they had to get in the 80s? Because man those old folks with the fully owned estates sure held a grudge.

      • aesthelete@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        I’m basically trapped in the condo that I bought in 2020 because of the absolutely unexaggerated reality you are describing here.

  • conditional_soup@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    Real talk, that’s maybe, what, 2,000 homes tops? For a really desirable area like San Diego, if you put all of those on the market at once, you’d sate housing demand for like a week. It’s not only the homes, it’s the density. We need to be building more vertical, it’s the only way we’re ever going to add enough housing to keep the price of rent attached to the earth.

    • SeattleRain@lemmy.worldOPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Housing prices are determined by rent. If you put all those houses in the market not only would it flood the market with inventory. It would dramatically lower the cap rate, i.e. the amount of profit from rent you can get by renting homes. There’s a reason why hotels were so heavily regulated before.

      • conditional_soup@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        For a bit, probably, yeah, but it’s really just a temporary measure. We need to be building a lot more housing, like plunking down unironic commie blocks, and doing it consistently to address the housing shortage and keep it from resurfacing.

    • Skyrmir@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      4 months ago

      Realistically that’s more like a month to 6 weeks of supply in a market that usually only has 3 weeks to 2 months of supply. It would crash the local market for 6 months, depress it for a year, and affect prices for 2 to 3 years at minimum.

      • conditional_soup@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        4 months ago

        The point is it’s a band-aid, not a fix. And what would a depressed housing market look like in San Diego anyway? Probably nothing too accessible, tbh. It seems more likely that the people or investment firms with the assets to would swoop down HARD on that market unless it was part of a broader action at the state or national level, which would quickly provide for a price floor. A proper fix would involve aggressively adding to the housing stock continuously for years and years.