You know how California got sick of greedy companies ripping off people for insulin so now they’re going to sell insulin themselves at a reasonable price? Yeah, they should do that with apartments.
Not just california, basically the entire world has maybe 10% of the HSR that should exist, japan is the only country i feel has a sufficient amount of railways.
Let’s all keep doing more and getting more people active to get it done. We got this. Same thing for other states as well. With every state getting mid-range high speed rail. Then we can get bullet trains for long distances
It will happen eventually just needs more people doing and more proper usage of funding. Can’t wait for upgrade from 39.5 million people to 200 million. Making it a full fledged country with amount of people to back it up. If California can develop in same Japan and South Korea do that would be awesome
That’s what it seems. I try not to write everyone off immediately and gave them space to explain themself because some people’s brains are a mass of wet noodles that don’t do logic good.
This literally happens in some areas outside the US. I can’t remember if it’s NotJustBikes or HappyTowns that talks about it on YouTube. But basically, the government offers affordable housing to force landlords to compete on quality and price. Shockingly in those areas rents are down and the quality of apartments is decent.
It’s fairly standard for each municipality here in sweden to own a landlord company that has some small fraction of the local housing supply and is explicitly for the public good.
I’ve lived in such housing basically my entire life and it’s so hilariously superior to anything else that if they removed the arbitrary limit on how much housing they can own, the municipal landlords would utterly dominate and the total spending on housing would probably drop by 50%…
I lived in a housing market like that. It was a college town dominated by a church subsidized school. The students had to live in on-campus, off-campus and registered, or unregulated housing. The only people allowed to do unregulated housing were those who had their stuff together e.g. married or living with family. Housing was cheap and any landlord disagreements could be complained against the uni housing office. The uni provided so much housing that prices were based on the uni’s low cost instead of anything higher. A friend from high school had her dad choose to “invest” by buying a small apartment building out there, but even with his daughter as manager, he didn’t make a good return because he didn’t have the scale to provide the minimum level of service. I think he sold it.
Students there tended to get married and have children while still in school.
Long story short, housing market regulation can be done via a dominating entity over demand, but non market forces are not common everywhere.
You know how California got sick of greedy companies ripping off people for insulin so now they’re going to sell insulin themselves at a reasonable price? Yeah, they should do that with apartments.
California’s housing would be much less of an issue if the high speed rail was built
High speed rail such a great way to travel medium distances anyway it’s downright criminal the US hasn’t figured it out yet.
deleted by creator
Not just california, basically the entire world has maybe 10% of the HSR that should exist, japan is the only country i feel has a sufficient amount of railways.
deleted by creator
Let’s all keep doing more and getting more people active to get it done. We got this. Same thing for other states as well. With every state getting mid-range high speed rail. Then we can get bullet trains for long distances
It will happen eventually just needs more people doing and more proper usage of funding. Can’t wait for upgrade from 39.5 million people to 200 million. Making it a full fledged country with amount of people to back it up. If California can develop in same Japan and South Korea do that would be awesome
That’s an idiotic take
deleted by creator
It would obviously allow people to live in cheaper committees and commute into the more expensive ones alleviating some of the issues.
Why are you so defensive and mean about someone bringing that up? Seems like you might have some issues
Removed by mod
Yes but he said “high speed rail” which is popular here so now you’re getting downvoted.
You’re right of course. It’s an idiotic take.
It’s kinda like saying housing would be a lot better if there were more forest rangers.
How is that at all the same?
It’s not.
That’s what it seems. I try not to write everyone off immediately and gave them space to explain themself because some people’s brains are a mass of wet noodles that don’t do logic good.
deleted by creator
That’s because I’m agreeing with the person and not rebutting the original comment. Which I have no desire to do.
But I will say this if you think high speed rail will impact housing in California you’re an idiot.
deleted by creator
Ok. Thanks. Good luck to you too.
This literally happens in some areas outside the US. I can’t remember if it’s NotJustBikes or HappyTowns that talks about it on YouTube. But basically, the government offers affordable housing to force landlords to compete on quality and price. Shockingly in those areas rents are down and the quality of apartments is decent.
It’s fairly standard for each municipality here in sweden to own a landlord company that has some small fraction of the local housing supply and is explicitly for the public good.
I’ve lived in such housing basically my entire life and it’s so hilariously superior to anything else that if they removed the arbitrary limit on how much housing they can own, the municipal landlords would utterly dominate and the total spending on housing would probably drop by 50%…
Vienna, Austria is a classic example. Don’t know about the current situation, though.
This is a great idea. Multiple states should band together to make this happen as well
I lived in a housing market like that. It was a college town dominated by a church subsidized school. The students had to live in on-campus, off-campus and registered, or unregulated housing. The only people allowed to do unregulated housing were those who had their stuff together e.g. married or living with family. Housing was cheap and any landlord disagreements could be complained against the uni housing office. The uni provided so much housing that prices were based on the uni’s low cost instead of anything higher. A friend from high school had her dad choose to “invest” by buying a small apartment building out there, but even with his daughter as manager, he didn’t make a good return because he didn’t have the scale to provide the minimum level of service. I think he sold it.
Students there tended to get married and have children while still in school.
Long story short, housing market regulation can be done via a dominating entity over demand, but non market forces are not common everywhere.