|
|
|
|
|
by no_wizard
457 days ago
|
|
>But that would require builders to build affordable homes, which is the same effort and lower profit than building luxury. This is only true because they can't build homes in significant volume in most localities due to land use and zoning regulations. It took 3 years in my former neighborhood to build 20 houses, because of the review and public comment period. This is the same story I've read about across the country: any locality that is desirable to live in has had increasingly strict regulations and processes that artificially constrain the building of housing inventory of any type. Given this, if you can only build 20 units instead of 2000, you'll end up building in the luxury category, as its the only way to maximize any value of the build without other incentives. If instead they could 2000 or 20000 homes that meet building code, builders could not only compete in earnest but you could do things like selling units at lower prices per unit but its made up in volume, or each housing unit could be denser (like town houses, condos etc). You can't overlook these aspects. Real estate is not a functional marketplace and should be seen as the definition of government regulation overreach in many respects, but home owners tend to vote in blocs, so politicians won't touch it |
|
If they wanted to, they could build them much more affordable and save 30% off the total price, but nobody does it. Why not? It takes the same amount of time and you might as well build the more expensive one because someone will buy it and you get a percentage of the sale price.