[matanshavit]

Darn, I rent (in NYC). I'm still not sure if buying an apartment here is a good bet long term, but I do wish I had gotten in on something when prices weren't going so crazy. I would only consider it right now if I found an amazing deal. Either that or wait for something to change with the housing market. From what I can tell, though, things are just going to get harder for individuals who want to own a home in major cities.

[candiddevmike]

Talk to your politicians about banning or severely taxing non-primary resident single family homes. Affordable housing should be a right.

[cperciva]

Banning or severely taxing homes which aren't occupied by the owner means banning or severely taxing homes which are occupied by someone other than the owner... aka. rentals.

Sure, you can make rental accommodation illegal if you want your community to consist solely of homeowners -- some HOAs do exactly this -- but it's the most vulnerable who will suffer under such a policy.

[notch656a]

The 'most vulnerable' rarely are living in single family homes. They are living in either public housing, a trailer, or crammed into illegally over-occupied studios.

That said putting more restriction on housing (even more taxes!) isn't going to improve the situation. Housing needs deregulation, not more regulation to distort the market even more.

[candiddevmike]

I don't agree. We're in a supply crunch right now, more houses == lower prices, and low income folks can always get government subsidized housing (or should demand more of it if none is available).

[cperciva]

There's a supply crunch, sure. And if you reallocate from rental to owner-occupied, you reduce the crunch somewhat on that side... but you make the supply crunch even worse for renters.

It's a popular policy decision for many politicians, since owners vote at much higher rates than renters; but I wouldn't call it good policy.