patrick.net

Human society is organized on the production of (reproductively) successful offsprings. It should surprise no one that people leave money to their kids and that the kids plan their lives based on money they get.

yes, it doesn't surprise me, but there are also things like death duties and income taxes which attempt to take it all away and distribute it again. even bill gates' dad is a strong advocate for this in his recent book (and advocating a revision of property laws in general). there is an interaction between the operation of individuals, their families, and the state, which is about maintaining the broader internetworked community in a fair and decent way. extremely affluent individuals depend entirely on all the other people in the community to deliver them their wealth, and are therefore not apart from it.

given that making money seems to be something of a fluke, and isn't the only measure of a 'good' person or the 'good' society, and can even overlook fundamental questions of citizens rights, i tend not to subscribe to social darwinist theories of monetary inheritance and natural selection as some sort of argument, although it is very popular at some level in the public mind. i don't think it withstands analysis though from a networking viewpoint. we only value people who are good at clawing money from others, regardless of the means? and what happens to the ones who had the money clawed from them? robert g allen is good at clawing money from people, but he is a manipulative liar, complete slime and borders on illegal and deceptive conduct -- many of his associates end up doing jail time for their attempts to make money. will his children inherit his sliminess? do we want to reward those kinds of behaviours? etc (and that's just the beginning of a critique)

When do you you think the fed will mandate, not suggest, tighter lending standards, due to the acceleration of foreclosures? My guess is after the November elections. This will be the beginning of prices spiraling downward. What do you think?

I think it depends on how bad the economy does. I don't see the Fed tightening its lending standard right now, toxic loan flyers are still all over the place.

However, what I noticed is, the RE market is truly extremely slow. 95% the pending sale of homes I see in the neighborhoods that I am familiar with were originated at least a couple of months ago. I see no origination of pending sale. Homes are NOT moving.

Another trick I see MLS playing is, when weekend is approaching, the inventory suddenly goes up since many homes are hosting open houses. Come Monday, inventory goes down, some houses are taken off the MLS only to re-appear again over the weekend.

I am wondering if I am the only person seeing this.

Glen's generational issue

I enjoyed reading his analysis. Since I am a lifelong resident of San Jose, went to college here, worked in different jobs here, etc., live in East S.J. among a "different demographic" compared to my tech colleagues at the job, I have a varied anecdotal circle.

And so, I reflected on Glen's posting. In the case I am familiar with where the elderly parent passed away, the house was sold. But the more general pattern has been that the parents sold their legacy house to buy into a higher quality of life outside of the San Jose area.

Those who relocated in an area in California where they could transfer their Prop-13 tax liability generally moved to a place that their kids were not interested in because of limited employment opportunities. Like the Sierra Foothills, etc. Others cashed out of California altogether, using the money to buy a quality of life in places like Carson City or Bend or Grants Pass. In those cases, the Prop-13 reduced tax assessment vanished.

OO,

The USA is becoming like so many other places, children of the elite families are overrepresented in the elite universities. Whoever said life is fair?

Children of the elite get into the right programs at places like the IIT, then the right grad schools here, then finish the graduate program, get the H-1, get the ball rolling, etc. A difference is, children of California's elite who get into elite schools here for their bachelor degree are not trying like crazy to get their advanced degrees at places like the IIT, then to relocate and plant a root of the family dynasty in Asia. But the reverse is true, happening every day.

You mention immigrants from Mexico. You know, in all the years I've worked in tech, I have never met an H-1 from Mexico. We should be doing all we can for Mexicans and Mexico, because whether it is right or fair or not,and whether we like it or not, we have to deal with some consequences of that country's economic failures. But I have never met an H-1 from Mexico. Maybe, our neighbors in Mexico should get preferential treatment for those visas, sort of an affirmative action social engineering with the H-1 program.

if you google 'bill gates dad', which i'm frequently wont to do, you get this sort of article:

FairEconomy.org - Bill Gates's dad advocates a sensible estate tax

plus his book which you can find on amazon...

ajh:
I went and had a look at an open house for this property

canberra laddie :)

Most people on this site are not targeting the beginner homes, so you need to wait out a bit.

I am targeting the beginner homes. Currently, they are priced from high 7 to low 9. There are quite a few choices now though.

Peter P,

Subtract a digit from your price and we're looking at decent starter homes in a good chunk of the country. A couple buying in that price range ought to be making $200K a year.

Peter P,

you should consider lowering your target to low 6, once the marginal owners who bought at the top get flushed out, I think it will be a reasonable target, if you don't want to wait for the absolute bottom.

If you don't mind condos, try high 4.

I read an article published by a chief eonomist of a mortgage bank with the title like ARM reset, illusion or truth (or something like that). I'll see if I can find that piece of research.

Given that we know which way he will argue, some of his data still presents the exact opposite picture of he wants to paint. One area is Equity % by homeowners. The national average was at its height back in 80s at around 58-60%, and then hovered around 56%, all the way till now. So he argued, well, since the equity % held by homeowners remains the same (oh really?), people still have a big cushion against big loss.

But wait, housing value in the last 10 years advanced 2x, 3x in many regions of the US of A, and equity ratio still remains 56%, exactly as it was 10 years ago? Where did the extra windfall in housing value go for the homeowners??? Since the 56% ratio is based on TODAY's housing value, what will it be if housing value heads down 20%?? 30%???

Well, Peter P is very demanding about bathroom and bedroom sizes, and cat friendliness... :)

But really, I just can't imagine couples making $200K as people looking for starter homes. Shouldn't it be couples making $50-100K a year?

One guest speaker at a conference held last year on affordable housing was:

Carol Galante
CEO, Bridge Housing Corporation, California (SF)
Lessons from the USA for Australia.

Bridge Housing’s experience as a not for profit developer and manager of affordable housing – what it takes and what we’ve learnt.

here’s a link to one of Carol Galante’s presentations (Powerpoint presentation, 6 Mb unfortunately):

http://www.housing.nsw.gov.au/nahc/presentations/Carol%20Galante%201.pps

can anyone confirm if the structures used in her presentation are actual affordable housing developments in CA? they look pretty swanky and posh, more like upmarket developments…

(unfortunately, the Bridge Housing Corp sells only about 30% of their developments, and sets up the rest for cost-controlled rental, presumably in a 'social investor' model. i can see other ways of controlling housing prices than this.)

DS,

Though I am for higher estate taxes and ending US's generation skipping tax loopholes, I'm no longer sure that American society is ideally suited for high social welfare. The social contract here was never as strong as in Europe, Oz, and Canada, and it's been hit by asymmetrical population growth (the poorer and less educated the mother, the earlier they have kids and they have more kids) and immigration - legal and illegal.

Also, given that well educated Americans have trouble managing their household budget and sensibly treating their homes as homes foremost...I'm not sure helping the poor to "own" homes is the greatest idea.

DS,

I can't confirm for the structure in her presentation, but I have come across a few affordable housing projects that look more or less the same as what she showed. Just judging from the appearance, you can hardly tell which one is an affordable housing project.

On average, US housing construction does look far more posh and swanky than Aussie projects targeting the same segment of the market, particularly when it comes to interior deco. Stockland, Mirvac etc are the quality setters down under, but when I compare their interior finish to the Toll Bros (equivalent in the US), Mirvac and Stockland still come a tad bit short in terms of fashion and finish. However, the Aussie designs are more environmental, more considerate and practical, just may not look that great on the outside. You know we yanks really care about the facade :-)

hmm, yeah, some of the public housing structures in NSW are extremely begrudging, but also very old -- the govt and others have steadily retreated from the whole idea of social housing in recent decades.

melbourne is a lot more into 'facadism' than just about anywhere in australia, which i think enhances the quality of life enormously, the desirability of green design issues notwithstanding...

Also, given that well educated Americans have trouble managing their household budget and sensibly treating their homes as homes foremost…I’m not sure helping the poor to “own” homes is the greatest idea.

astrid, i thought you were a self-proclaimed 'active progressive'. is an american progressive actually an anti-progressive anywhere else? this discussion is unpacking huge cans of worms about requiring 'responsible' market provision of loan products, the role of intervention and redistribution and so on which is absolutely Soc 101. 80% of people used to have an owner-occupier housing career, and public housing and renting as a long-term was marginal and residualised. that has now been turned on its head by 'market forces' in the last 20 years, and it was, to some extent, simply an accident. now no-one is allowed to have the security of their own equity and freehold title in retirement except by lottery. you seem to becoming more fatalistic and laissez-faire by the minute, which tends not to be the progressive's stance. if you advocate electing Democrats, perhaps you should be looking at their policy documents a little more closely and having a good ol' fashioned think.

you should consider lowering your target to low 6, once the marginal owners who bought at the top get flushed out, I think it will be a reasonable target, if you don’t want to wait for the absolute bottom.

Low 6 is a good target. :)

It seems to me that the move-up market starts at around low 900, so I thought the starter house goes from high 700 and up.

In Sunnyvale, 3 bedroom townhouses start at around low to mid 700. They are clearly targeted towards first-time homebuyers.

It is really scary that because of easy financing the starting price is pushed so high.

But really, I just can’t imagine couples making $200K as people looking for starter homes. Shouldn’t it be couples making $50-100K a year?

It is all relative. 400K will only buy an apartment-conversion nowadays. However, I definitely see that new 2/2 condos selling at this range again.

thanks for going out of your way to take a look at the presentation, OO.

i'm quite disgusted by the quality of architecture in sydney, btw. if an architect has even breathed on a project, real estate agents try to add $200 000 to the price, simply because most of what is here is really awful looking tat. you can get a really good looking place in melbourne for a lot less than an ordinary place in sydney. that has changed a little lately due to a style guide and edict by the state premier, but only in the last 5 years or so. even now, developers still build vast banks of identical apartments which are not human scale and made unattractive by sheer repetition and size -- and still charge drug money for them...

I’m not sure helping the poor to “own” homes is the greatest idea.

Astrid, think again... great idea for whom? :)

Most recent homebuyers have no business in homeownership. Somehow, it is considered too un-PC to break them this piece of news.

My progressivism is informed by a basic understanding of scarcity and human behavior. I would support higher minimum wages, free preventative healthcare, and free pre-school education first. Those would do much more to help the working poor and the lower middle class.

Ownership of housing has substantial downsides, especially for people who have little budgeting skills and are vulnerable to frequent layoffs and firings. Abundance of cheap, safe rental housing would do the working poor much more good than any misguided efforts to get the working poor into shoddy shitboxes.

I would support higher minimum wages, free preventative healthcare, and free pre-school education first. Those would do much more to help the working poor and the lower middle class.

The workforce also needs to be properly incentivized. This is why I favor no minimum wage and a flat tax. This way, people will be more inclined to better themselves. Education is more important than healthcare.

Abundance of cheap, safe rental housing would do the working poor much more good than any misguided efforts to get the working poor into shoddy shitboxes.

I agree. But existing homeowners will always lobby against low-income housing projects. They would love to see poor people getting toxic loans so that someone will be buying their shitboxes.

what you're really saying is that the US welfare system is so far behind the pack that they haven't even got healthcare and the minimum wage right. and that's quite right -- the US is always listed at the bottom of any taxonomy of affluent welfare states. and i think the reason for that becomes obvious when posters even here advocate making things even worse as a preferred policy direction.

i don't think the 'poor' and working class are by definition poor savers and poor budgeters, they just have less to bring to the labour market than others, and therefore remain trampled at the bottom of the heap. a whole broad package of reforms and restructuring would have to take place to make sure you didn't just sell them 'shoddy houses', especially since the cost of constructing even a good house is relatively low, and the rest is all about unfettered market speculation and greed, leaving the poor behind.

DS, I actually believe that the minimum wage system is detrimental to the poor.

Poor people are poor usually because circumstances are against them. This is difficult to change. We can only hope to make resources so adundant that everybody has enough. I think technology can help a bit here, but... hey, they are not making any more land. :)

As for buying real estate. I don’t even think about buying for the next 5 to 10 years. Renting is not only cheaper, but more economically efficient and has a more economically transparent structure.

Astrid, I used to think that way. However, as my first Saturn Return approaches, my desire to settle and put down roots intensifies. Do not underestimate heavenly objects. ;)

DS, I actually believe that the minimum wage system is detrimental to the poor.

Poor people are poor usually because circumstances are against them. This is difficult to change. We can only hope to make resources so adundant that everybody has enough.

hmm, it just ain't necessarily so in other countries that have higher minimum wages. australia's minimum wage is about the highest in the OECD at about $12/hr, but at least it ensures survival without having to turn to crime. that's been one of the mainstays of the social settlement and maintaining social order by not creating an underclass.

the 'circumstances' are human circumstances that can be changed, it's important not to lose sight of that -- it's not some abstract functioning of the elements like the wind and the rain. it's a totally arbitrary socially controlled and socially constructed system. i think one good way of making the poor less poor is to pay them more. and the visible result is a flattening of the wage structure and more equitable outcomes for all, with an overall increase in wellbeing and a reduction in crime, everything else being equal. otherwise you will end up with a brazil-like society of favelas and constant crime and danger where life is cheap, nasty, brutish and short. in a sea of surplus, abundance and affluence. it's a wilful failure to do the right thing.

DS,

I cannot open your Power Point, being on a Mac, but I know that Bridge builds some very nice, well designed housing. Often they use the "market rate" housing portion to subsidize the low income piece.

I went to the launch of this property:

http://www.bridgehousing.com/Default.aspx?DN=192,32,7,1,Documents

because my wife works for one of the underwriters. It is a really well put together place with lots of common space and a real sense of community. I went with my daughter, so I ended up hanging out with all the other parents, who were all renters there, not with the politicos who were there for the official launch. Oh well, schmoozing is my wife's job, not mine...

Any thoughts on the RE market in the Greater Seattle Area?

People, don't be too arrogant. We poor people do not need your help. If you help yourself succeed, you will make the economy strong and as a result benefit us poor. So instead of leading an idle life debating policies for the poor, why don't you go out and start small businesses and hire us poor people? We want to work, damn it. If I can afford a plane ticket to China, I would go there and compete with the Chinese. I want a job!!

DS,

The poor tend to be less educated and have fewer financial planning resources. And I think that makes them less suitable as home owners. A lot of people are not suited to be home owners; I, for one, am quite poor and not suited to home ownership.

Governor Conan,

But I don't think you'd enjoy competing with the Chinese. The work atmosphere there is positively 19th century. There's a reason why the US and Europe has created a social contract (though the one in the US is now in great disrepair) to avoid that kind of race to the bottom. You think finding a job and going to work is a drag in the US? It's much much worse in China.

Peter P,

I would recommend you go to Great Basin National Park and camp in one of the high campgrounds. You will find the most amazing night sky there. (much better than Bryce Canyon)

I, for one, am quite poor and not suited to home ownership.

really? you don't want to own a home anywhere? why are you blogging here then???

it just depends... if you expect to travel the world a lot, maybe there's no point, unless you really want to cement some equity and the rent will cover the mortgage payments. just depends whether you want control over your own place to drill and saw and renovate and not wait 6 weeks for the landlord not to repair something, etc

but what you pay in rent in all fairness could well be paying off a reasonably priced house or apartment, if that's what you mean -- there's no good reason housing can't be priced in line with rents, so as long as you could make the rent you could make the mortgage payment.

even in a partly social-ised world, the idea of cementing equity is fairly important, as owner-occupiers will generally fare better in retirement if they have paid the place off...

DS,

I'm mainly here for the company. I doubt most of the regularly are just here for fresh housing information.

The housing bubble is interesting to me as part of a much larger economic problem that could impact my life dramatically. Furthermore, I don't plan to be poor forever and I would be open to some bargain hunting in the future.

What I say about the poor is not passing moral judgment. Rather, most of them are simply not in a good position to buy houses. They don't have the economic cushion and control over jobs available to people in the middle class. They are constantly struggling to deal with day to day bills, they are very vulnerable to uncontrollable life changes.

As for houses as an enforced savings device. Wouldn't encouraging savings accounts be a better way? Or simply give the poor more money to save. Those are less complicated solutions than pull the poor into an already overpriced housing market with the false belief that housing will be their economic salvation, rather than an economic albatross for the unwary.

What I say about the poor is not passing moral judgment. Rather, most of them are simply not in a good position to buy houses. They don’t have the economic cushion and control over jobs available to people in the middle class. They are constantly struggling to deal with day to day bills, they are very vulnerable to uncontrollable life changes.

There are universal equity models that could be adopted that simply let you pay into a place, or gain 'credits', through your lifespan. You're operating very much in a free market mindset around the way jobs are handed out, housing is allocated, etc. Also with the way that welfare is allocated. I think 'the poor' need encouragements to participate more in the labour market without being penalised in this fashion. They are rights bearing humans and citizens also. There is also the question of whether the free wheeling labour market is really a good thing for people if they are constantly at risk of being laid off. The 'middle class' also is just an extension of the working class, and they don't have a whole lot of 'control' over their own job either, just more options to get another one if they lose their present one. I don't know if generalisations about 'the poor' are very helpful, though, given that students are 'the poor' while they're young, but not necessarily later, etc. And it is still possible to have a housing career on a low income in other parts of the US, where housing is actually very cheap by world standards.

As for houses as an enforced savings device. Wouldn’t encouraging savings accounts be a better way? Or simply give the poor more money to save.

Yes, but they will be paying rent separate to anything they will manage to save, which won't be much. Sure, give the poor more money, by all means -- I've certainly advocated a higher minimum wage and providing other forms of welfare -- but you're better off giving them access to owner-occupied housing if they desire it, and a great many people DO desire to own their own home. 'Giving the poor more money' is just as great a welfare intervention as anything else. But there might be more 'incentivisation' in offering them access to their own housing if they are able to participate in the workforce and make some sort of minimum payment each week or some other period. They would not be expected to 'compete in a housing market', you would be quarantining large numbers of houses as affordable housing with price controls, as per the Bridge Housing concept I've posted in above. And as I'm writing to the Minister of Planning at present...

DS,

I think you're missing my point, which was that a "housing career" is not a suitable solution for many people, and particularly the poor, given their very real present circumstances. Given those presently unforgiving circumstances, giving the poor more home buying assistance is like giving them more rope to hang themselves. Yes, house buying in this current economic situation, is economic suicide for the economically fragile.

Additionally, there are moral hazards aplenty with this kind of subsidy. My parents currently live in Montgomery County, MD, generally considered a model community for providing mixed income affordable housing solutions. However, I can tell you that those affordable housing gets abused by certain families, many scions of upper middle class Chinese families (who are on their first job and making below the county median income) get into the subsidized housing lottery and get below market price houses, and then rent the houses out and cash out at their first opportunity. I also know a woman who have a large hidden income and gets her relatives to buy subsidized homes, which she then controls and rent out.

There is no constitutional right to buy the home one lives in. Indeed, there is no constitutional right to lead a meaningful life. Successful society ought to promote economic and utility maximization as a whole, as the American welfare system and the American medicare system has demonstrated, indiscriminate subsidizing of any particularly group is unlikely to lead to optimal resource allocation.

Astrid,

'Optimal resource allocation' and 'utility maximisation' is a nonsense when people are buying luxury items like Dom Perignon champagne on a whim with huge excesses of disposable income while others can't feed their kids because they were laid off or became ill through no fault of their own. Further, you have no understanding of the concept of citizens or human rights, or ways of enhancing social capital in communities. I've pointed out that one of the prices you will pay for a dysfunctional, disharmonious society will be a cost in crime, and 'anomie'. Increases in crime from a dispirited, disenfranchised sector in itself will upset your 'social utility theory' since you will find they will not agree to being used like pawns in some utilitarian's game while breaking into houses, robbing stores and selling drugs to make money. I'd point to the French Revolution as a stark case of this anomie when organised. American race riots are another case in point. The union movement is another.

I'm not going to debate these issues any further, because you are not involved in government policy making, you are not aware of some of the key functions of responsible government, you apparently don't have a stake in desiring change in the housing market, and you want to debate social policy matters without any real training in the area or appreciation of the factors that will determine what really happens out there.

You've pointed to some situations that can occur when systems are not monitored properly, and housing authorities often rely on whistle blowers to report cases of fraud when they occur. Your moral responsibility would be to report those cases where you know of them. These are not arguments to disband any and all attempts at providing affordable housing for the citzenry where the market is clearly operating dysfunctionally.

I've pointed out that land valuation is arbitrary. In fact, the value of everything is arbitrary. However, with the advent of a housing boom where prices have doubled in real terms relative to wages in a very short space of time, we are clearly seeing people locked out of housing who would rather be in it -- low, lower-middle and middle income earners, not just 'marginalised' people with unstable earning patterns. And clearly, the possibility of a doubling in prices for no good reason points to speculation and exploitation by a class of would-be landlords or property flippers. These things are no good for people locked out of housing, and no good for the macro-economy, because it's unproductive and isn't going to last. These last points have been reiterated over and over on this site already by numerous regular posters.

Housing ownership has been demonstrated to increase social capital and community wellbeing. It will provide a nest-egg and security in retirement for many. Homeowners in studies have been shown to be happier than renters, more trusting of their neighbours, and so on.

While I have assembled a 'library' of many policy documents on this topic from the net and other sources, they're obviously not suitable for loading here. A few of them are on my blogspot (as attached to my name), but I need to design a new site to allow the convenient presentation of them. Even the Bridge Housing site has the following to say:

Housing in California, let alone affordable housing, continues to be a catastrophic issue: seven counties rank among the ten least affordable in the country. Construction and land costs here are among the highest nationwide, and are dramatically exacerbated by a market where population pressures far exceed the available housing stock. The combination of these factors has had a brutal effect on the state’s low- and moderate-income families and seniors. Today, the median price of a home in the Bay Area is over $540,000. In Southern California, average home prices are also high, averaging over $450,000 in San Diego and Irvine. Throughout the state, record-high housing prices are well beyond the means of working families. Despite these trends, homeownership—with its ability to revitalize whole communities—remains one of the most important asset-building strategies for low-income and minority households. BRIDGE is committed to furthering these social and financial benefits through the goals of our Homeownership Initiative.

Home Ownership

DS,

Governments are quite efficient for public goods like policing, national defense, public education, and healthcare. Even well planned public housing may work much better than private housing solutions. However, when you move beyond those things and get into making subjective judgments about what people want and need, inefficient behavior starts to appear. Of course, it's always a balancing act between doing too much and doing too little, but societies ought to resist the temptation to do too much, especially when the society is not homogenous and there's much disagreement about society's goals. Thus, while high level of social welfare has worked exceptionally well in Europe, OZ and Canada (all those complaints about Canadian healthcare notwithstanding), I think American society is less suitable for a similar level of public services.

Government subsidies is free money, the same way that the housing bubble is free money. Both incentivizes misbehavior.

Overall, I just think you don't really understand America at the ground level. Your ideas might make sense in OZ, but it sure as hell makes no sense in America. It's just pies in the sky that doesn't address much deeper economic problems. Following those suggestions is not only politically unfeasible, but will also lead to a myriad of unanticipated results. You can read up on the People's Commune for more examples.

I've mentioned this before, and I apologize for starting again, but your everything is valid approach to real world problems makes no sense in a world where humans have free will and our resources are finite.

absolutely, newsfreak -- I've always said here that it's about land speculation, where valuers split out the cost and value of construction from arbitrary land value in their valuations. How else could a place in CA be worth so much? (Or, more accurately perhaps, the value lies in having some sort of functioning residence on a block of land with an income or utility potential. There are reasons raw land is not always quite as valuable as the land under a zoned residential dwelling.)

It's true the Consitution drafted in 1780 or thereabouts says little about the right to own your own home. Societies have changed a little in 200 years. Further, there is nothing in the Constitution that says schooling should be subsidised for kids, that immunisations will be compulsory, that water will be fluoridated, or that milk will be available along with fresh food at the school canteen. Or that garbage will be collected, sewers, electricity and phone lines will be provided, and so on. However, all these things are held to be public goods in the public interest to make a more pleasant, cohesive society, or to give kids every opportunity, etc. The Constitution is most definitely not the be-all and end-all of the role of government, it's an initial framing document and charter of Federation, to be fleshed out in more detail by all the laws and policies of Federal, state and local government as deemed suitable and necessary for the benefit of the people.

In the spirit of this thread of patrick.net self-examination and renaissance (i.e. better forum software), there should well be a patrick.net Declaration of Housing that can be mostly agreed upon... (preferably not saying 'some are more equal than others')

astrid, on the ground, there's scarcely any differences in the underlying framework of the so-called anglo-american welfare states. the english speaking systems tend to copy and borrow from each other enormously, and thus have quite a lot of de facto harmonisation without fiat. they are almost all at the bottom of any proposed taxonomy of welfare states.

there are a few freakish differences, such as the really high incarceration rates in the US, an order of magnitude higher than any comparable country. healthcare has not been 'socialised' to anywhere near the extent of most other OECD countries.

in that spirit of agreement, in fact, house price setting has tended to remain in the open market in many countries as a convention, where many other things have been regulated in some way. i'm amazed in fact that it remains so given the opportunities for corruption in property deals and the disenfranchisement of so many in booms and busts. the legal arrangements are still quite feudal, and in fact stem from feudal understandings and arrangements.

when you think about it, just about every aspect of housing is strongly regulated by govt EXCEPT the price -- building codes and standards, land zoning and permitted uses, block sizes and subdivision, setbacks, appearance to the street, permitted design features, water, sewage and electricity connections, property taxes, council rates, allowable modifications to buildings, FSRs, maximum heights, etc, etc. pricing has conveniently been about the only thing left out of the basket. why is that, do you think?

on the question of 'what people want', i'm not telling them what they want, it's been found in studies. if someone could buy their own place and have control over it instead of renting, at the same price, all else being equal, which do you think they would choose? why else all this sturm und drung over housing prices in society?

here is a survey on trust, at least:

The 2002-03 Wellbeing and Security Survey's author Dr Philip Hughes said levels of trust had been falling across the community for several years.

Dr Hughes said the lowest levels of trust were found among those in public housing and the second lowest was among those renting privately.

"Those people who feel more vulnerable in society are more cautious, along with those people who feel more vulnerable and those people who have lower levels of health and lower levels of financial independence and education," he said.

It's a matter of trust: but we don't even like our neighbours

in closing, interestingly, many areas in both canada and the US have remained quite affordable compared to other countries which have experienced an unremitting boom. so there has been a good de facto social settlement there concerning housing for a long time, which is only now starting to be dismantled. and at least there are options to remain in your own country and still purchase affordably -- assuming you are mobile, are happy to leave extended family, move to a strange state, and can find a reasonable job there...

It is always about where that house is, where that land is.

location, location, location... ;)

not just speculation, but ascribed land value -- agreed....