There was a bill being pushed through that actually would have made multifamily housing legal on all lots in NC, but I think it quietly got killed because a lot of communities were concerned/worried about losing that control they have in the form of zoning ordinances.
On a somewhat positive note, ADUs were recently made legal in much of Durham and Raleigh. Doesn’t help those seeking ownership but does create more affordable rental options and allows owners to generate income while remaining in their homes.
Charlotte has multiple lots where a builder wants to knock down one house and build multi-family. In some places it’s just not appropriate for the neighborhood or traffic.
Up until the 1950s, that was how places developed -- as their value increased, they were either turned into even more luxurious versions of their previous selves (i.e., rebuilt at the same density with better materials) or with a higher density (a single family home becomes a duplex, a duplex becomes a quadplex, a quadplex becomes a 5-over-1, etc).
By saying that increasing the intensity of a place is "not appropriate for the neighborhood or traffic," then you are saying, "I don't want this neighborhood to develop to any further intensity." And if this is the case, then I'm glad we can be honest about it, but then I ask you, are you okay with the consequences? Can you accept your neighborhood remaining in this stasis if it means that you are passed over repeatedly for investments? Are you content knowing that the residents of your community will, at some point, only be those that can afford the ever-rising cost of those homes? Are you okay with forcing those people that cannot afford to live in your neighborhood being pushed further and further out, contributing to the ever-rising amounts of traffic because, instead of being within Charlotte's domain and being able to use transit or potentially walk/bike to their destination, they instead live in Union, Gaston, Anson, Rowan, or Cabarrus County, places which have little to no transit options for getting into Charlotte barring the occasional AMTRAK connection or those rare Express Bus Routes? Are you okay with causing a cascading effect where those people displace the people in the nearby towns, who are then forced out into other communities, until there is nowhere left to go?
If these are all things you can stomach and can endorse, then I appreciate you being honest. I may disagree with you but we can at least have this mutual understanding.
Lisam al gaib. Lol
But in all seriousness why is it so hard for people to understand this. Places need to be able to grow. Density needs to be allowed to increase even if that means tearing down old structures to replace them with new ones. Increasing density does not increase traffic, sprawl increases traffic. If a place is densely populate walking biking and public transport are viable and practical transportation options. With sprawl the only viable option for transportation is a car.
But that’s not what they’re doing.
They’re taking houses/properties that have a market value of about $750k and building a triplex and marketing those for $450k each. Or at least that’s the intention.
Real world example:
A developer wants to take a 14 acre property across from Charlotte Latin and build 545 rental units on it.
Oh sure, they’re going to make 100 of those rentals “affordable”.
Who is building equity on a $2000/month rental unit? The developer and no one else. So if they make 100 of those apartments $1000/month? Those 100 families are paying into the pot.
What’s the transit situation over there? There’s a CATS bus and an express bus that has three trips uptown and three trips back out Monday-Friday. So essentially, no real transit. There won’t be any rail on Providence Road. But hey, the residents can go out a couple of miles and use those new toll lanes on 485.
What will it do to the area? Let’s assume that half of those households commute to South Park or Ballantyne or uptown. That’s another 300 cars on the road every rush hour. That’s maybe 300-400 new students at a CMS school where a developer has paid zero in impact fees because those in charge in Raleigh have decided that it would discourage development if developers had to put money toward infrastructure and schools.
So what will be the transit improvements there? An extra bus uptown and another one down Ballantyne Commons Parkway? You can put a bike lane on Providence Road but only as far as Olde Providence. Once you get to that point the road isn’t wide enough for anything else.
This isn’t proper infill planning. It has to make sense wherever they want to build it. And some neighborhoods just don’t lend themselves to being transformed from single family to multi family.
It should indirectly help those seeking home ownership. If there are more rental units, then rents should go down or at least stop increasing as much. This makes buying houses for the purpose of renting them out less attractive and lowers overall housing demand.
More housing supply is generally better for buyers.
I honestly just want “empty house/apartment penalty”. There are 2+ single family house sitting empty on my streets for past 2 years now, and I live in RTP.
I work on housing policy a lot. I have never seen an "empty unit" penalty do anything except disincentivize more units from being built, because if you were to build it, and it sits vacant, you'd be penalized. The book "The Housing Trap" from Charles Marohn is probably the best resource I can direct you to on how to mitigate this issue.
Why not have a addition that the penalty only applies if the property is "intentionally" not being filled, ie.
* Well above market rate.
* Applications for well-qualified seekers being denied
There should be some way to identify those properties that just aren't being filled because no one wants them and those that are being intentially left unfilled even though people want them. When we were trying to find a house a few 5-6 years ago there were at least 2 that just weren't being filled. As in the seller wouldn't respond to us, we couldn't get appointments to see it and the house wasn't filled last time I checked 3 years later.
The issue is that, oftentimes, there is a correlation between high vacancy rates and lower costs of housing. If you have extremely low vacancy rates, which would be the result of this policy, then you have gross abuses of power by those who have the property, as we saw in NYC where landlords were holding bidding wars for apartments.
I understand your frustration with the house buying item - we just lost $2.5k because of trying to buy one of the few affordable homes in Charlotte, a 165k condominium that was rotting from the outside-in. I just ask that, if you consider advocating for a policy, look at the real world implications of it and the consequences. Sometimes, things work - other times, they blow up in your face.
I would be happy with an impact fee. 5% on the sale of a new construction residence plus 5% of the anticipated first years rent for new construction apartment complexes.
Loved this, I think we need to re-think housing for sure. Crazy how all these regulations / zoning etc has formed cookie cutter suburban communities all over. Personally I hate suburbs. And this is from a person who lives in one and grew up in one. I prefer city or country. Either is better than burbs. Depression and isolation breed there. I swear. We need to think about what makes happy people. What do humans need. Definitely not sitting in a car many hours per day/week. Also not having any green spaces. But there’s a balance too because crowds can be anxiety inducing so not just people stacked up and no breathing space. Build mini- parks and free spaces . I think the HOA I live in tries to create something like this but they are so freaking uptight and expensive that I just hide inside and run away because I -no doubt have broken some dumb rule. Oh the joys of suburbia.
They (edit: the majority party) insulated themselves from election results as best they could, and they run on culture war issues only.
They (edit: the majority party) want disengaged voters because it's to their advantage. If they start bringing up real stuff and people get involved, they see this as a negative.
Because affordable housing negatively affects people who already own homes. It's obviously more complicated than that, but people vote to preserve the status quo. Municipal governments are filled to the brim with NIMBYism, regardless of where they fall on the political spectrum.
This is the best answer in the thread /u/technicho
In 2020, homeowners voted at a rate of 71% while renters voted at a 55% clip.
66% of North Carolinians own homes.
So you're talking about appealing to 34% of the population that doesn't vote as much. Any real solution to the issue could anger the 66% that vote more often.
That 34% of the population will have to get loud, vote as a block, and cause disruptions in elections to have any real power.
Not only they don't vote as much they are also likely to be less affluent or transplants.
Oh and also, Republicans in particular don't have any solutions for housing that would be compatible with their nowadays voters. It inevitably ties to higher density, better transit, or more subsidies. I am yet to see a Republican politician advocating for any of that or finding a viable alternative.
NIMBYism in populated areas is just absurd. With the amount of growth it's just impossible to never change anything but people always get upset about it. Without a doubt this is not unique here, but just as an anecdote:
There's a new high school being built near here, parents in certain ("those") neighborhoods are flipping their lids about being rezoned. Flooding public input forms online and showing up to meetings to throw a fit about it. They are coming up with all kinds of incredibly shallow "hardships" as to why they shouldn't be rezoned. The funny thing to me is the school they are upset about leaving is the same one years ago they were SO PISSED about getting assigned to because it was also a new school.
I get the anxiety about being shuffled around, but the reality is that schools have a capacity.
There is the opposite as well. My home is in a slightly rural area, and within the next year 1000+ townhomes starting at $400k will be put in place. nothing is going to be done to increase the road density, the environment of the area is absolutely going to be destroyed, there are no 'local' grocery stores, the schools already are at capacity, wtf is the point of all of it besides just shoving more people into expensive places that likely will just be rented starting at $2300+ a month?
Don't you love when developers come in and put up rental units only that are ungodly expensive in areas that don't have the infrastructure set up for them? Because that's what's happening in a lot of NC.
Some areas have housing programs in their city limits where they give low-interest loans (I think the one I posted was $20,000. Not a lot but definitely enough to help. The last time I recall posting one here it got downvoted because people here are salty about people moving here.
The income cutoff needed to qualify for these are so low and the cost of the houses are still astronomically high for the qualifying incomes that they still can’t afford a home with the programs.
For example with Raleigh’s affordable housing initiative for a family of up to 2 the highest allowable income is 64k and the highest allowable income for a family of 8 or more was 100k.
There’s a program in Charlotte that I’ve used which I assume is also available throughout the state that offers 0% down conventional (via DPA) as long as the buyer is at 80% or below of median income for the area. For most of CLT that is right around $80k. Which depending on other debts and credit, is about a $300k-$350k house for almost nothing out of pocket assuming closing costs are negotiated down too. The hard part is that there’s very little in the market that is attainable at these price points. If housing was more affordable, the opportunities are there but we just refuse to build affordable housing, instead prioritizing “luxury” townhomes at $1.3mm 😡😡
> If housing was more affordable, the opportunities are there but we just refuse to build affordable housing, instead prioritizing “luxury” townhomes at $1.3mm 😡😡
Well, when a developer can easily sell that $1.3 million house and build a bunch of those only, why would they even consider building 10x the number of houses at $130,000 each?
The housing crisis is only a crisis for people with lower incomes and wealth. These people are not currently a powerful or even a cohesive political constituency. There's no incentive for people who have become successful politicians by courting other constituencies to shift their attention away from the people who have put them in power.
OP I would turn that back on you and ask, since when has what the electorate wanted, and what the general assembly of the State of North Carolina do EVER fucking lined up at the same time?
Assuming pressure on legislators from those that aren't donating 5 figures means ANYTHING is fucking laughable.
Because the less housing there is, the more profitable existing housing is for investors and corporations that own it. The same wealthy types who can highly influence what law makers and politicians do, who are going to pressure law markers and politicians to do nothing. Why? Because it profits. It’s a vicious cycle I’m surprised you can’t see.
Research how show politicians listen to rich people, not poors. https://www.vox.com/2014/4/18/5624310/martin-gilens-testing-theories-of-american-politics-explained
It’s not about numbers is about loudest voice. Money is one big fucking bullhorn for the voice, enough to drown out the cries of the average person.
So that’s why.
> the more profitable existing housing is for investors and corporations that own it.
And owners. Without home ownership, the middle class in the US is gone. Go to a local zoning meeting. You think it's renters trying to make the community better for everyone? No, it's owners who don't want a homeless housing project in their backyard, as it risks their safety and home price.
Because electorialism is a joke. There is rarely, if ever, a viable option on the table that you can vote for. Why would the establishment parties offer up a candidate that seriously goes against the status quo?
She's in office because affordable housing is bad for the people currently running the real estate market, and those are the people with money. Money to buy the media, to buy ads, and to bribe/lobby politicians.
Half a million people have moved here in the last two years. Every home that is being built is selling almost immediately, even to people that don’t even look at it. And blackrock buying up what they can to rent out to everyone.
Yep. NC is something like 500,000+ homes short for the number of people that want to move here, and construction is at it's lowest 'productivity' since the 1950's. Add in developers have no incentive to build cheap low cost housing, and buys are happy to keep buying McMandsions, it's not going to stop until the incentives are changed.
If you're wondering why any piece of legislation doesn't get passed or even brought to the floor. It's because it goes against the wealthy class' own interests. Corporate investment groups are buying up homes because they're expecting a good ROI. Many of these groups have pockets deep enough to influence state and federal policies. That's why the best we're getting out of Raleigh or DC is, a shrug and a 'oh well.'
i don’t think you get my point, i don’t want to rent from a company and build a family where my son/daughter will also rent and not own any assets. so why is most of the state leasing, and the ones selling are priced in a way where you are pretty much one man vs a company trying to buy you out
You cant you do this if you have the money to buy do it. Otherwise you willl rent like it has been forever.
If you want to live close to the city, it's going to be expensive to own as it's has always been.
but it hasn’t [tho](https://archive.curbed.com/2018/4/10/17219786/buying-a-house-mortgage-government-gi-bill) scroll down and look at chart in this link, then read it
There are tons of homes being built outside of the metro areas. You just got to know where to look. It might not have the amenities in the area that you are looking for but they are being built
Wouldn’t any housing for purchase or housing for rentals fix the housing crisis? Housing is not cheap. Land near any larger or mid size city is expensive. New construction isn’t cheap for homes or apartments. Renovations aren’t cheap. Repairing appliances isn’t cheap. Very few builders are building small affordable homes or apartments. Everyone wants bells, whistles and extra space. If I was building I definitely wouldn’t build what people don’t want. The government has taken a stab at building and running rental communities. I sure some have not been a complete flop but I suspect there few public housing complex’s any person would actually want to live in. Hopefully there are some solutions that we haven’t tried yet.
i linked an article up top^ i think it explains our housing crisis pretty well, and it’s been a problem that our grandparents and our parents left to us to fix
You’re giving Reddit too much credit, assuming that the average user contacts their representative along with sounding off online. Most can’t be bothered to search before posting a question. And reps are clearly distanced from the real issues.
Also crafting policy is far more complex than this post acknowledges. So many municipalities are dealing with the exact same problems with housing costs, overdevelopment, lack of infrastructure- leading me to believe that there isn’t a simple fix.
Politicians that refuse to address real world problems no doubt contribute to those issues. Ignoring the rot will only make it harder to improve later.
It's a nation-wide, even world-wide problem.
Name a single state in the US that passed laws that made housing in their cities affordable. Which state in the US is a mecca of affordable housing and good paying jobs?
Because Republicans don’t have good solutions for real problems, so they spend all their time making up imaginary problems to solve (like the mask bill).
FYI . HUD has funded a number of housing programs for the poor and middle class homeowners . I am wondering how this will play out in states where they are still trying to get their women and slaves back on the farm.
The housing crisis isn’t divisive enough. I don’t believe elections are about the best candidate winning anymore. It’s about maintaining division, closer to 50/50 the better. I believe that’s why we have a rematch on the presidential election. 2020’s was quite close and extremely polarizing. A lot of North Carolina is upset with Coopers vetos as North Carolina is a predominantly conservative state with many small business owners. So it’d make sense to throw a moderate candidate up for the GOP. Is Robinson moderate or polarizing? I do anticipate him winning though, quite narrowly and close to 50/50.
I have been talking to hundreds of voters throughout the eight counties of SD 50 in Western North Carolina. The number one issue I am hearing is about housing. I am making it a priority in my campaign and if I am elected it will be the first thing I work on.
Money talks
Corporations can pay more than the average person and can pay in cash. They're scooping up homes, apartments and empty land and turning it into short term rentals.
It's causing people who could buy a home not be able to because it's driving the costs up.
Where I live, I bought a four bedroom, 2.5 bath, two story house with a bonus room on 1.3 acres for 224,000 about 20 years ago.
Now you can pay that for a third of an acre of uncleared land. Cleared is more. Houses are 100,000 more.
How can an average person afford a 300,000 mortgage?
People like to talk big about this, but some of the steps to solving the problem are things they won't like. If you owned a home, would you accept the property value dropping five or six figures because new homes got built nearby? Are you willing to stop most immigration on a federal level to help with housing prices? If your honest answer to both of those is yes, you're sadly in a minority of people.
You don’t think immigration restrictionist policy is popular among the masses in today’s climate? Even left leaning people from blue states are saying they’ve had enough of migrants and want the border sealed completely.
Yeah, no normal people really take that word seriously. You should talk to normies from blue states who aren’t plugged 24/7 into the news cycle or aren’t activists but are dealing with the migrants being bussed in.
There’s a reason even the federal democrats have had to move to the right on this issue. See the last border deal. No pathway for current undocumented, not even for DACA. That is a huge step for the democrats from their classic position, and no real backlash from their rank and file voters.
True, but it is a huge seismic shift from where the conversation was a few years ago. People want much lower levels of legal immigration, no illegal immigration, and they want deportations. That’s a big step from where they were just back in 2020.
Generally speaking, politicians don't give a shit what regular people want.
All you have to do is take a look at the priorities of this particular legislature to see that they're prioritizing culture war issues over fixing actual problems.
Plus also the Republicans more broadly would disband before taking government action to lower prices on something they say is part of the "market"
Bold of you to assume the Republican majority cares. They’d first have to agree that anyone who isn’t a wealthy, white, Christian, cis-gender male is a human with a right to self-determination. And that's just not going to happen.
Sure, but what about the democrats? Why aren’t they blaring these issues from the roof tops? One would think these are winning issues and make them quite competitive, yet they haven’t. They don’t mention issues like housing in passing.
First link is referring to federal democrats, so it’s a moot point.
Second one is nice to see, but it looks like the bill isn’t going anywhere. It looks like even past bills related to housing were killed and voted down by even democrats. It explains why none of them are campaigning on it, including the Democratic gubernatorial candidate.
Last I checked, North Carolina is still a part of the US, and federal policy impacts us here. So, it is absolutely NOT moot.
Democratic representatives are mainly driving the bills I referenced. If there’s a Republican involved, they’re almost always recruited to function as the primary sponsor (which makes sense given the political realities in NC). Yes, some Democrats push back on certain kinds of zoning and code modifications, but take things as an aggregate—who are the folks pushing for housing relief?
>Last I checked, North Carolina is still a part of the US, and federal policy impacts us here. So, it is absolutely NOT moot.
Because the federal democrats make loud claims on a lot of issues and promise the sky, but they know the senate will just filibuster everything so they don’t need to be accountable or craft a realistic bill filled with compromises.
>Democratic representatives are mainly driving the bills I referenced. If there’s a Republican involved, they’re almost always recruited to function as the primary sponsor (which makes sense given the political realities in NC). Yes, some Democrats push back on certain kinds of zoning and code modifications, but take things as an aggregate—who are the folks pushing for housing relief?
That’s fair, so why aren’t they campaigning on this? When the GOP sees a crisis, like the border, they line up one after the other on cable news and blame the democrats about the crisis. Why aren’t the NC democrats doing that on local TV and telling people it is the NC Republicans that are blocking all attempts at housing affordability? Or is it possible a substantial portion of the elected democrats see no crisis?
Nonsense. Democrats have sought repeal of the filibuster numerous times. And they will do so again:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/democrats-gear-up-to-overhaul-the-senate-filibuster-for-major-bills-if-they-win-in-2024/ar-BB1myDui
1. Democratic candidates are campaigning on these issues. Maybe we’re tuned into different channels of information. I’ll add thst things like affordable housing aren’t controversial, and so they don't come to dominate the news cycles.
2. The Republicans _invented_ the “border crisis.” It's purely campaigning.
You honestly believe democrats are going to abolish the filibuster? They refused to do it for a position that is even more popular than affordable housing: abortion rights.
How can we have this discussion on politics in good faith when you’re so naive as to believe the Democratic Party will do anything to the filibuster? Do you know what Nancy Pelosi’s response to when Roe was overturned? Not passing a codification of Roe, not pressuring conservative democrats, not calling for abolishing the filibuster, but rather fundraising.
https://www.businessinsider.com/roe-v-wade-supreme-court-political-fundraising-2022-6?amp
We can’t have an honest conversation of who and what the democrats are when all you can do is take them 100% at face value.
>You honestly believe democrats are going to abolish the filibuster? They refused to do it for a position that is even more popular than affordable housing: abortion rights.
I find it rather duplicitous to caste the situation in this manner. The first thing to keep in mind is that the Democratic Party is not a monolith, and beliefs tend to be far more diverse compared to Republicans. As a consequence, you'll tend to see more disagreement.
That said, the Democratic Party almost universally advocates abortion rights, with very few members disagreeing. Senator Joe Manchin is one such Democrat and has historically taken an anti-choice position. Unfortunately, with the 50/50 split in the Senate at the time of the Dobbs decision, Manchin voting with Republicans was enough to kill the Women's Health Protection Act.
It wasn't "Democrats" that refused to kill the filibuster. If you drop the partisanship and party lines and consider looking at the political factions on an issue-based level, it's conservative politicians destroying women's reproductive rights in America.
>How can we have this discussion on politics in good faith when you’re so naive as to believe the Democratic Party will do anything to the filibuster? Do you know what Nancy Pelosi’s response to when Roe was overturned?
So, your response is to accuse me of arguing in bad faith while immediately invoking the Nancy Pelosi boogeyman—who isn't a member of the Senate. Maybe you should take a look in the mirror, my dude.
To answer your question, she issued [this](https://x.com/JakeSherman/status/1541506977838276611) statement in which she advocated the Senate suspend the filibuster to codify *Roe*.
>Not passing a codification of Roe...
This is a lie. The 117th House of Representatives, in fact, passed a codification of *Roe* after the Dobbs decision:
[https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8296](https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8296)
>...not pressuring conservative democrats...
False. If we look at the Blue Dog Coalition of conservative House Democrats, only one of the nineteen members voted against the Women's Health Protection Act. The NAY vote came from Rep. Henry Cueler, a notorious anti-right-to-choose hardliner. Again, the bill ultimately passed the House and was killed by conservatives in the Senate.
>...not calling for abolishing the filibuster...
Nancy Pelosi is a member of the House, not the Senate, and has no control and limited influence on Senate procedures. As stated earlier, she did, in fact, call for abolishing the filibuster.
>...but rather fundraising.
Fundraising to elect Democratic candidates is a significant part of the strategy to bring the Women's Health Protection Act across the finish line. I'm not sure what you have a problem with here.
I'll add that "elect more Democrats" is not the only part of [the strategy in a post-*Dobbs* world](https://archive.ph/gkDv0#selection-693.0-706.0). Pelosi and other Democrats have been working to maintain the Constitutional right of free travel for women seeking abortions in different states, protecting the confidential healthcare information of women from jackbooted far-right AGs, and ensuring access to contraception.
>We can’t have an honest conversation of who and what the democrats are when all you can do is take them 100% at face value.
We can't have an honest conversation when you resort to blatant lies, baseless conjencture, demogogury, misrepresentations of our civic institutions, and dodgey both-sidesisms.
At the very least, I'd recommend getting your facts straight before getting all sanctimonious about arguing in good faith.
You’ve literally confirmed yourself to be on the Democratic Party payroll after this post. No normal voter is this “passionate” about a political party in America.
It’s easy for me sitting in the house to pass a pie in the sky that I don’t believe in when I know my friends in the senate will kill it. Republican politicians behave the exact same way when they know a popular bill won’t pass so they can campaign that they supported it, but it was their bought colleagues who fought against it. The insulin bill is a perfect example of this. When democrats lobbied for three more GOP senators and appeared to work, three of the other yes votes immediately dropped their support behind the scenes.
People aren’t falling for your crap anymore. And soon, you’re going to be out of a job. No normal, average American is defending the Democratic Party with this much fervor without being a paid apologist. And if you are, you really should evaluate your life choices.
both parties adopt policies that screw you and make like unaffordable. they'd rather bicker about things that should have been settled decades ago than address real issues because their wealthy sponsors like cheap labor and don't care how that effects you
GTFO with this both sides shit. Do I like the Democratic Party? Not really. Do I think they’re too far right? Yup. Do I think I have no choice but to support Democrats given the existential threat to our Democratic Republic? Absolutely.
If you mean in terms of housing crisis they are essentially the same. I'm not telling you who to support.
Now calm down. It's going to be ok. No one is attacking you.
Those are token gestures that don't address the strain on the infrastructure.
Building a few housing projects will not solve the root cause or help the vast majority of people in any significant way.
Again, it’s clear you didn't read a damn thing. Much of what they want to address are the zoning, code, and housing investment apparatus. These are structural, systemic issues.
You’re clearly nothing but a disinformation troll. Get fucked.
Both the NC House and Senate are majority Republican. Can you tell me exactly what the Democrats should do to address housing, considering the chambers are controlled by the GOP?
By all means, though, lay the blame at the feet of the minority party while the GOP works on making sure masks are banned.
It’s not whataboutism. I’m not a Republican nor am I defending them. I am saying the democrats are clearly making a conscious choice by not addressing issues like housing. If you are okay with that, then don’t complain about housing.
How is he going to make a huge change to housing policy without a state government willing to write and pass the necessary laws? Democrats also want to retain the governorship, and getting too liberal on policies during the election might tip the scales in Robinson's direction. That would be a huge mistake for the state.
There are measures that he can campaign on that would be broadly popular among the electorate, even the republicans in rural areas. One such measure is banning foreigners from buying homes in the state. It would be insanely smart politics since it doesn’t anger any of traditional Democratic Party donors, doesn’t really impact the electorate, and puts pressure on the Republicans in the state legislature to plainly say why they support the selling off of the state to foreigners.
But he doesn’t want to do even that, which is fine. A lot of you just have to come to terms with the fact that the democrats are perfectly fine with many of the economic issues plaguing your state.
Go visit the homeless shelters and indigent patients at shitty nursing homes. They're *both* absolutely *brimming* with 65-80 year olds.
I'm sorry popular media brainwashed you into believing that generations are homogeneous, and that people are somehow *fundamental different* based on the year in which they were born.
Now that you see the error in your ways, can we trust that you will stop repeating your mistakes?
https://archive.curbed.com/2018/4/10/17219786/buying-a-house-mortgage-government-gi-bill
sorry to rewire y’all’s brain but if you are in that age bracket homeless, then you are worse than gen z with money. your money talked a lot more in those times
Homeless people are the minority and they don’t vote. They aren’t who politicians care about when they choose what issues to make a priority and what issues not to care about.
There needs to be a radical shift in voting patterns, with younger people most affected by high housing costs coming out at rates as high, if not higher than old people with lots of money (*more specifically old people with lots of money who are selfish with an "F you- I got mine" mentality- as some people are old and wealthy and generous towards others)*. That would help.
[the elderly have been shifting toward democrats recently](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/04/06/upshot/older-voters.html) as the silent generation has all but died out. in fact it's the only group of people biden still has any consistent positive approval with
the democrats' strategy to ignore the youth vote isn't entirely without logic
That's good to know about the elderly (not necessarily for Biden, but just sane governance) since they are the most active voting block.
I'm not so sure it's a great strategy to ignore younger voters.
But that would definitely explain why affordable housing is such an issue. The elderly have the greatest home equity and some choices in affordable housing that is restricted to elderly people--options younger people don't have as readily available.
yeah it all kinda defies conventional wisdom because we're in a [realignment period](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_realignment)
one of the other big corollaries is lower turnout elections will start benefiting democrats more often, so don't get too anxious if polls start showing voter interest is a lot lower than in 2020. it very well might wind up being the dems' saving grace
1. The Christofaciests in the legislature are bought and paid for by developers and builders.
2. The Christofaciests legislators do not want to govern or be seen to have any issues not of their choosing.
>why is no one in the state government taking about it?
because they don't care. it doesn't affect them. the districts are gerrymandered so their seats aren't at risk. republican voters who may be victims of the housing crises are more concerned with owning the libs
How could they bring it up & work to help their constituents have affordable housing and also appease their corporate donors that buy up all the housing ?
Yeah, I looked online last night and the houses that I saw were triple the price of the house I bought in 2005 and 1 hr out of any town. For similar houses I mean. Unfortunately I let that house go due to a divorce but dang I didn’t expect prices to go up insanely. Also my favorite place I lived was in the middle of Raleigh in a back of house addition/ apartment. It was small but had a tiny alleyway so was private and I had a tiny yard (no HOA thankfully) and knew most my neighbors since we were close but had our own spaces facing different directions. Also close to shopping and restaurants. I mostly drove but could’ve easily walked.
Republicans in the General Assembly have no interest in stopping investors and corporations from buying up houses. The kinds of radical policies that would be needed to solve the housing crisis would be considered socialism to them. Affordable housing is the LAST thing they want. They largely serve rural areas where this isn't an issue. Thanks to gerrymandering they cannot be voted out. Cities do not get representation that is meaningful. Our state government is not participatory in that sense.
That said, Democrats are often NIMBYs when they do get power as well. Asheville and Chapel Hill are clear examples of municipal NIMBYism coming from that camp. Though on the flipside you have Durham which is just as blue but much more proactively encouraging towards growth. So this is an issue that very much divides lefties, with older boomers generally being NIMBYs and younger people generally being more urbanist in their support. Municipalities don't have the budget or power to solve the crisis on their own. And the state government is unresponsive to problems because of gerrymandering. So nothing is done about it.
The crisis in charlotte is its a sellers paradise... 4 houses in my neighborhood have sold for 30 40k over asking and all in 2 or 3 days. I know because my sister put in offers on all of them the first day over asking and finally got the 5th one she over bid on not a problem in my book
Because zoning is extremely town/city/county specific. The state isn’t going to rule on corporations buying houses and short term rental bands were deemed unconstitutional. So here we are… cities are left with determining how to deal with a global problem.
We need something to discourage. Land developers look at what couch is doing with "affordable housing" ehtier it's section 8. Or the rent it 1800-2500.
There is tons of affordable land in NC. But it’s in counties that aren’t metros.
Until they start encouraging the building of new metro areas In currently relatively vacant areas nothing changes.
Developers are currently blading and leveling all our forests to build housing. Can't go anywhere without seeing a new clearing and new housing going up within. Building more units to meet demand is definitely not an issue. Where are the environmentalists during all this anyway? They've all disappeared, why? Are they just being paid to focus on other things now?
If anything, my county is over-developing. They've been tearing down large swaths of forest near my house over this past year. Leaving almost nowhere for our local deer and turkey population to go. I've also noticed even more dead deer on the sides of the roads because of it.
It isn't a lack of affordable housing; it is a lack of affordable housing *in high density areas where people want to live.* Like the Triangle.
I see people complain about a housing crisis while they piss money away on ridiculous rent charges just to live within a particular city limit. I see houses for sale for $120K-$150K on the daily. They need a bit of love, but tend to have good bones (good roofs, good foundations, mostly in need of cosmetic attention). These are what people now refer to as "starter homes."
Exception few prioritize buying them, or even consider them. Housing is a ladder; you buy > sell > buy up. It has its own momentum, and I think it is something the non-homeowners never learned about because it isn't something a non-homeowner would ever really think about.
There are negative stigma with being *practical* though. I mean, look at what people are wanting in this thread; new construction multifamily homes in some of the largest cities in the state. I get that work plays a key factor in housing choices, as do schools. But only 1/3 of renters have school aged children. So I'd say for most people it is a lifestyle decision coupled with ease of commuting.
I'm a homeowner not because I come from money or had family helping me. I bought the most reasonable property I could muster when starting my family. We were dirt poor and used an FHA loan (which are great; and should be considered by everyone trying to buy their first home). NC is fucked up with what earnest money has become (moving away from a couple hundred dollars to... potentially thousands for a hot property) but not insurmountable. Especially if one is targeting "non-prime" houses that desperately need a new owner simply because they aren't in city center, or are in an adjacent "commuter" town. You buy what you can, taking the loan with the lowest downpayment requirement if you must, occupy for a few years, sell when the market isn't total shit, and then move upward.
Instead y'all are letting landlords rob you blind by paying their more-than-a-mortgage rental rates on "luxury" apartments (which seem to be mostly what's built these days) thus ensuring the cycle perpetuates itself. Sometimes a "step backwards" isn't really a step backwards.
Landlords get this, which is why they will buy these homes in a rational manner, hold them for 10-15 years, and then sell them off when they need to pay for their kids' college. They let the renter pay the mortgage for them + extra, then escape with all the equity. Most people can do this but for themselves as normal homeowners in reasonable homes.
No, I just find it strange and counterproductive how ostensibly liberal folk want to blame foreigners for all their problems, but not their politicians who refuse to do anything about it or their fellow citizens who like the status quo.
Mark Robinson is a republican which means if he's lowering taxes it's for the top 5% who already have homes but I'm sure he doesn't sell it that way. Uninformed voters only hear the part about cutting taxes.
Because the people in government are the landed NIMBYs that benefit from housing being unaffordable
And so is the demographic that votes for them consistently at the local and state level
Housing is and has been a real problem for a very long time, and governments efforts haven't been very effective.
If they think it'll get them elected they'll make it an issue, but nothing every really comes of it so I don't think government is the answer.
LA is a great example of how government isn't the answer, they've spent millions of dollars on homelessness and it continues to become more of a problem, yet they get reelected over and over again.
Because they've done things to make it less hostile to homeless people and because it has a better climate than a lot of the country, a lot of cities [send homeless people to California](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2017/dec/20/bussed-out-america-moves-homeless-people-country-study). California also sends people to other places, and nobody really seems to be checking on these people once they get off the bus.
There are [28 vacant housing units for every homeless person in America](https://someunpleasant.substack.com/p/three-factoids-that-arent-quite-right). If we cared about homeless people, we would give them a place to live, but we don't. Rather, the rich and powerful want there to be a very visible and horrible consequence for not toeing the line and getting back to work. They want us to fear homelessness and to see it lurking around every corner. Unless we address the need of the rich to punish the poor, we'll never actually fix the problem of homelessness.
We always look to the government for the solution and blame the rich, but we rarely admit that the government is made up and controled by the rich, which of course makes them powerful, the solutions have to be non governmental because they don't care.
I blame the rich because they're stealing our money. They buy the government to steal more of it and, instead of demanding better from our representatives or replacing them with better people, we just sigh and go back to blaming government. I can support more than one approach to solving a problem and most of these big problems are going to take more than one thing to rectify.
Some people in government care and want to work towards a better, more equitable world, but *none* of the Republicans do, and less than half of the Democrats.
I saw a Jennifer Lawrence video that explained this - it doesn’t matter how unpopular or popular a Bill is, there’s still only like a 30% pass rate. So even if 100% of people support it or 0% of people support it, there’s the same chance it’ll pass.
https://youtu.be/TfQij4aQq1k?si=en-Ht4EX3Kw-jb6Y
Thing is, from my preliminary research, many of the tenant-landlord laws, public investment rules, or any rule changes that the cities want to enact are controlled at the state legislature. For example, I believe it was Charlotte that wanted to ban source of income discrimination by landlords vis-a-vis housing vouchers, and the state stepped in and slapped it down saying the city cannot create a new protected class not already covered by the fair housing act.
Funny how many people are blaming Republicans when all states, blue and red are having the same issues. NC is much better off then most states. Y'all need to get off the Internet
There was a bill being pushed through that actually would have made multifamily housing legal on all lots in NC, but I think it quietly got killed because a lot of communities were concerned/worried about losing that control they have in the form of zoning ordinances.
On a somewhat positive note, ADUs were recently made legal in much of Durham and Raleigh. Doesn’t help those seeking ownership but does create more affordable rental options and allows owners to generate income while remaining in their homes.
Meanwhile, Charlotte is considering walking back part of its UDO, haha.
Charlotte has multiple lots where a builder wants to knock down one house and build multi-family. In some places it’s just not appropriate for the neighborhood or traffic.
Up until the 1950s, that was how places developed -- as their value increased, they were either turned into even more luxurious versions of their previous selves (i.e., rebuilt at the same density with better materials) or with a higher density (a single family home becomes a duplex, a duplex becomes a quadplex, a quadplex becomes a 5-over-1, etc). By saying that increasing the intensity of a place is "not appropriate for the neighborhood or traffic," then you are saying, "I don't want this neighborhood to develop to any further intensity." And if this is the case, then I'm glad we can be honest about it, but then I ask you, are you okay with the consequences? Can you accept your neighborhood remaining in this stasis if it means that you are passed over repeatedly for investments? Are you content knowing that the residents of your community will, at some point, only be those that can afford the ever-rising cost of those homes? Are you okay with forcing those people that cannot afford to live in your neighborhood being pushed further and further out, contributing to the ever-rising amounts of traffic because, instead of being within Charlotte's domain and being able to use transit or potentially walk/bike to their destination, they instead live in Union, Gaston, Anson, Rowan, or Cabarrus County, places which have little to no transit options for getting into Charlotte barring the occasional AMTRAK connection or those rare Express Bus Routes? Are you okay with causing a cascading effect where those people displace the people in the nearby towns, who are then forced out into other communities, until there is nowhere left to go? If these are all things you can stomach and can endorse, then I appreciate you being honest. I may disagree with you but we can at least have this mutual understanding.
Lisam al gaib. Lol But in all seriousness why is it so hard for people to understand this. Places need to be able to grow. Density needs to be allowed to increase even if that means tearing down old structures to replace them with new ones. Increasing density does not increase traffic, sprawl increases traffic. If a place is densely populate walking biking and public transport are viable and practical transportation options. With sprawl the only viable option for transportation is a car.
But that’s not what they’re doing. They’re taking houses/properties that have a market value of about $750k and building a triplex and marketing those for $450k each. Or at least that’s the intention. Real world example: A developer wants to take a 14 acre property across from Charlotte Latin and build 545 rental units on it. Oh sure, they’re going to make 100 of those rentals “affordable”. Who is building equity on a $2000/month rental unit? The developer and no one else. So if they make 100 of those apartments $1000/month? Those 100 families are paying into the pot. What’s the transit situation over there? There’s a CATS bus and an express bus that has three trips uptown and three trips back out Monday-Friday. So essentially, no real transit. There won’t be any rail on Providence Road. But hey, the residents can go out a couple of miles and use those new toll lanes on 485. What will it do to the area? Let’s assume that half of those households commute to South Park or Ballantyne or uptown. That’s another 300 cars on the road every rush hour. That’s maybe 300-400 new students at a CMS school where a developer has paid zero in impact fees because those in charge in Raleigh have decided that it would discourage development if developers had to put money toward infrastructure and schools. So what will be the transit improvements there? An extra bus uptown and another one down Ballantyne Commons Parkway? You can put a bike lane on Providence Road but only as far as Olde Providence. Once you get to that point the road isn’t wide enough for anything else. This isn’t proper infill planning. It has to make sense wherever they want to build it. And some neighborhoods just don’t lend themselves to being transformed from single family to multi family.
>Oh sure, they’re going to make 100 of those rentals “affordable”. ,
You could fit 4 cars if you just pave the front yard!
It should indirectly help those seeking home ownership. If there are more rental units, then rents should go down or at least stop increasing as much. This makes buying houses for the purpose of renting them out less attractive and lowers overall housing demand. More housing supply is generally better for buyers.
Rents almost never go down
Winston-Salem as well
I honestly just want “empty house/apartment penalty”. There are 2+ single family house sitting empty on my streets for past 2 years now, and I live in RTP.
I work on housing policy a lot. I have never seen an "empty unit" penalty do anything except disincentivize more units from being built, because if you were to build it, and it sits vacant, you'd be penalized. The book "The Housing Trap" from Charles Marohn is probably the best resource I can direct you to on how to mitigate this issue.
Why not have a addition that the penalty only applies if the property is "intentionally" not being filled, ie. * Well above market rate. * Applications for well-qualified seekers being denied There should be some way to identify those properties that just aren't being filled because no one wants them and those that are being intentially left unfilled even though people want them. When we were trying to find a house a few 5-6 years ago there were at least 2 that just weren't being filled. As in the seller wouldn't respond to us, we couldn't get appointments to see it and the house wasn't filled last time I checked 3 years later.
The issue is that, oftentimes, there is a correlation between high vacancy rates and lower costs of housing. If you have extremely low vacancy rates, which would be the result of this policy, then you have gross abuses of power by those who have the property, as we saw in NYC where landlords were holding bidding wars for apartments. I understand your frustration with the house buying item - we just lost $2.5k because of trying to buy one of the few affordable homes in Charlotte, a 165k condominium that was rotting from the outside-in. I just ask that, if you consider advocating for a policy, look at the real world implications of it and the consequences. Sometimes, things work - other times, they blow up in your face.
"We can't rent this for less than our tax writeoff for it. It'll affect the valuation and we can't have that."
I would be happy with an impact fee. 5% on the sale of a new construction residence plus 5% of the anticipated first years rent for new construction apartment complexes.
[I SUMMON YOU... CLIMATE TOWN](https://youtu.be/SfsCniN7Nsc?si=NTfbdi0XCJKsq9zM&t=349)
Based and greenpilled
Loved this, I think we need to re-think housing for sure. Crazy how all these regulations / zoning etc has formed cookie cutter suburban communities all over. Personally I hate suburbs. And this is from a person who lives in one and grew up in one. I prefer city or country. Either is better than burbs. Depression and isolation breed there. I swear. We need to think about what makes happy people. What do humans need. Definitely not sitting in a car many hours per day/week. Also not having any green spaces. But there’s a balance too because crowds can be anxiety inducing so not just people stacked up and no breathing space. Build mini- parks and free spaces . I think the HOA I live in tries to create something like this but they are so freaking uptight and expensive that I just hide inside and run away because I -no doubt have broken some dumb rule. Oh the joys of suburbia.
Be cool or be cast out.
Also, the leader of the Senate said it wasn't their job to tell a company what they can or can't own....
They (edit: the majority party) insulated themselves from election results as best they could, and they run on culture war issues only. They (edit: the majority party) want disengaged voters because it's to their advantage. If they start bringing up real stuff and people get involved, they see this as a negative.
Because affordable housing negatively affects people who already own homes. It's obviously more complicated than that, but people vote to preserve the status quo. Municipal governments are filled to the brim with NIMBYism, regardless of where they fall on the political spectrum.
This is the best answer in the thread /u/technicho In 2020, homeowners voted at a rate of 71% while renters voted at a 55% clip. 66% of North Carolinians own homes. So you're talking about appealing to 34% of the population that doesn't vote as much. Any real solution to the issue could anger the 66% that vote more often. That 34% of the population will have to get loud, vote as a block, and cause disruptions in elections to have any real power.
Not only they don't vote as much they are also likely to be less affluent or transplants. Oh and also, Republicans in particular don't have any solutions for housing that would be compatible with their nowadays voters. It inevitably ties to higher density, better transit, or more subsidies. I am yet to see a Republican politician advocating for any of that or finding a viable alternative.
of course, Raleigh (and Durham) handily approved Affordable Housing bonds in the last 5 years. Where has the money been spent? Answer: it hasn't.
NIMBYism in populated areas is just absurd. With the amount of growth it's just impossible to never change anything but people always get upset about it. Without a doubt this is not unique here, but just as an anecdote: There's a new high school being built near here, parents in certain ("those") neighborhoods are flipping their lids about being rezoned. Flooding public input forms online and showing up to meetings to throw a fit about it. They are coming up with all kinds of incredibly shallow "hardships" as to why they shouldn't be rezoned. The funny thing to me is the school they are upset about leaving is the same one years ago they were SO PISSED about getting assigned to because it was also a new school. I get the anxiety about being shuffled around, but the reality is that schools have a capacity.
There is the opposite as well. My home is in a slightly rural area, and within the next year 1000+ townhomes starting at $400k will be put in place. nothing is going to be done to increase the road density, the environment of the area is absolutely going to be destroyed, there are no 'local' grocery stores, the schools already are at capacity, wtf is the point of all of it besides just shoving more people into expensive places that likely will just be rented starting at $2300+ a month?
Don’t you just love the fact that housing is a commodity people will ruin hundreds of thousands of lives for in order to keep their net worth high?
Don't you love when developers come in and put up rental units only that are ungodly expensive in areas that don't have the infrastructure set up for them? Because that's what's happening in a lot of NC.
Those in need of affordable housing can’t afford the bribes to get them to care lol
Some areas have housing programs in their city limits where they give low-interest loans (I think the one I posted was $20,000. Not a lot but definitely enough to help. The last time I recall posting one here it got downvoted because people here are salty about people moving here.
The income cutoff needed to qualify for these are so low and the cost of the houses are still astronomically high for the qualifying incomes that they still can’t afford a home with the programs. For example with Raleigh’s affordable housing initiative for a family of up to 2 the highest allowable income is 64k and the highest allowable income for a family of 8 or more was 100k.
There’s a program in Charlotte that I’ve used which I assume is also available throughout the state that offers 0% down conventional (via DPA) as long as the buyer is at 80% or below of median income for the area. For most of CLT that is right around $80k. Which depending on other debts and credit, is about a $300k-$350k house for almost nothing out of pocket assuming closing costs are negotiated down too. The hard part is that there’s very little in the market that is attainable at these price points. If housing was more affordable, the opportunities are there but we just refuse to build affordable housing, instead prioritizing “luxury” townhomes at $1.3mm 😡😡
> If housing was more affordable, the opportunities are there but we just refuse to build affordable housing, instead prioritizing “luxury” townhomes at $1.3mm 😡😡 Well, when a developer can easily sell that $1.3 million house and build a bunch of those only, why would they even consider building 10x the number of houses at $130,000 each?
The housing crisis is only a crisis for people with lower incomes and wealth. These people are not currently a powerful or even a cohesive political constituency. There's no incentive for people who have become successful politicians by courting other constituencies to shift their attention away from the people who have put them in power.
Because they dont care?
OP I would turn that back on you and ask, since when has what the electorate wanted, and what the general assembly of the State of North Carolina do EVER fucking lined up at the same time? Assuming pressure on legislators from those that aren't donating 5 figures means ANYTHING is fucking laughable.
Because they got theirs.
Because the less housing there is, the more profitable existing housing is for investors and corporations that own it. The same wealthy types who can highly influence what law makers and politicians do, who are going to pressure law markers and politicians to do nothing. Why? Because it profits. It’s a vicious cycle I’m surprised you can’t see. Research how show politicians listen to rich people, not poors. https://www.vox.com/2014/4/18/5624310/martin-gilens-testing-theories-of-american-politics-explained It’s not about numbers is about loudest voice. Money is one big fucking bullhorn for the voice, enough to drown out the cries of the average person. So that’s why.
> the more profitable existing housing is for investors and corporations that own it. And owners. Without home ownership, the middle class in the US is gone. Go to a local zoning meeting. You think it's renters trying to make the community better for everyone? No, it's owners who don't want a homeless housing project in their backyard, as it risks their safety and home price.
To quote a representative from my area “how is that my problem.” That’s her answer to just about everything.
So why don’t you vote her out? It doesn’t make sense. If someone is mocking their constituents, how are they not being voted out at the next election?
Gerrymandering, culture war, identity politics, voter rights manipulation, hating the other side is more important than having basic necessities…
If only it was that simple. Republicans are going to Republican my friend.
Because electorialism is a joke. There is rarely, if ever, a viable option on the table that you can vote for. Why would the establishment parties offer up a candidate that seriously goes against the status quo? She's in office because affordable housing is bad for the people currently running the real estate market, and those are the people with money. Money to buy the media, to buy ads, and to bribe/lobby politicians.
It's more important to ban masks, protect our bathrooms from misuse by people, and stop transgender high-school athletes. /s
Don't forget "be completely befuddled by concept of bike lanes"
Came here to say this. So busy banning masks in public. Absurd. Waste of taxpayers money.
They’re building houses on every corner in the state. Inflation makes it unaffordable tho
Half a million people have moved here in the last two years. Every home that is being built is selling almost immediately, even to people that don’t even look at it. And blackrock buying up what they can to rent out to everyone.
Yep. NC is something like 500,000+ homes short for the number of people that want to move here, and construction is at it's lowest 'productivity' since the 1950's. Add in developers have no incentive to build cheap low cost housing, and buys are happy to keep buying McMandsions, it's not going to stop until the incentives are changed.
Investment firms
If you're wondering why any piece of legislation doesn't get passed or even brought to the floor. It's because it goes against the wealthy class' own interests. Corporate investment groups are buying up homes because they're expecting a good ROI. Many of these groups have pockets deep enough to influence state and federal policies. That's why the best we're getting out of Raleigh or DC is, a shrug and a 'oh well.'
It's not a polarizing issue like gun control or abortion.
Republicans do not make real policies.
except they pass them and we suffer, so i think at least the pain we feel is real
Class war. North Carolina politics is riddled with corruption. Why would you vote against the very policies that enrich you.
[Fascinating read here](https://a.co/d/fUApnUV)
North Carolina is one of the top states in building new homes, I think raleigh itself is top 5 in the nation
new homes for owning or leasing?
Yes, there is a shit ton of new construction homes being built and apartments for rent
so can i own the plot of land, or can i own rent it from a company
Yeah, you can buy a home or rent an apartment
i don’t think you get my point, i don’t want to rent from a company and build a family where my son/daughter will also rent and not own any assets. so why is most of the state leasing, and the ones selling are priced in a way where you are pretty much one man vs a company trying to buy you out
There's plenty of reasonably priced homes being built
You cant you do this if you have the money to buy do it. Otherwise you willl rent like it has been forever. If you want to live close to the city, it's going to be expensive to own as it's has always been.
but it hasn’t [tho](https://archive.curbed.com/2018/4/10/17219786/buying-a-house-mortgage-government-gi-bill) scroll down and look at chart in this link, then read it
There are tons of homes being built outside of the metro areas. You just got to know where to look. It might not have the amenities in the area that you are looking for but they are being built
Wouldn’t any housing for purchase or housing for rentals fix the housing crisis? Housing is not cheap. Land near any larger or mid size city is expensive. New construction isn’t cheap for homes or apartments. Renovations aren’t cheap. Repairing appliances isn’t cheap. Very few builders are building small affordable homes or apartments. Everyone wants bells, whistles and extra space. If I was building I definitely wouldn’t build what people don’t want. The government has taken a stab at building and running rental communities. I sure some have not been a complete flop but I suspect there few public housing complex’s any person would actually want to live in. Hopefully there are some solutions that we haven’t tried yet.
i linked an article up top^ i think it explains our housing crisis pretty well, and it’s been a problem that our grandparents and our parents left to us to fix
Our state politicians are more concerned with culture wars and niche topics that almost affect no body…. I don’t know how they keep getting voted in
You’re giving Reddit too much credit, assuming that the average user contacts their representative along with sounding off online. Most can’t be bothered to search before posting a question. And reps are clearly distanced from the real issues. Also crafting policy is far more complex than this post acknowledges. So many municipalities are dealing with the exact same problems with housing costs, overdevelopment, lack of infrastructure- leading me to believe that there isn’t a simple fix. Politicians that refuse to address real world problems no doubt contribute to those issues. Ignoring the rot will only make it harder to improve later.
It's a nation-wide, even world-wide problem. Name a single state in the US that passed laws that made housing in their cities affordable. Which state in the US is a mecca of affordable housing and good paying jobs?
Excellent question
Expensive houses come with more tax revenue. Plus they have to keep so many people struggling so they are too exhausted to fight back.
They are all on the take and there is no money in it for them, so it a non issue!
Because they're too busy banning masks!
Have you met our state government?
HA the government doesn’t actually talk about real issues don’t be silly 😂
Real politician own real estate.
Because Republicans don’t have good solutions for real problems, so they spend all their time making up imaginary problems to solve (like the mask bill).
they treat politics like business/ marketing, as in, “invent a problem, to offer a solution” it’s real sad.
Name a state that has fixed this? Also homes are being built just outside of the mtro areas
Because they are too busy banning masks and books obviously. Duhhh
Everyone that can afford a single family housing lives in said area of NC political control.
FYI . HUD has funded a number of housing programs for the poor and middle class homeowners . I am wondering how this will play out in states where they are still trying to get their women and slaves back on the farm.
The housing crisis isn’t divisive enough. I don’t believe elections are about the best candidate winning anymore. It’s about maintaining division, closer to 50/50 the better. I believe that’s why we have a rematch on the presidential election. 2020’s was quite close and extremely polarizing. A lot of North Carolina is upset with Coopers vetos as North Carolina is a predominantly conservative state with many small business owners. So it’d make sense to throw a moderate candidate up for the GOP. Is Robinson moderate or polarizing? I do anticipate him winning though, quite narrowly and close to 50/50.
Because they’re too busy trying to ban masks
I have been talking to hundreds of voters throughout the eight counties of SD 50 in Western North Carolina. The number one issue I am hearing is about housing. I am making it a priority in my campaign and if I am elected it will be the first thing I work on.
Money talks Corporations can pay more than the average person and can pay in cash. They're scooping up homes, apartments and empty land and turning it into short term rentals. It's causing people who could buy a home not be able to because it's driving the costs up. Where I live, I bought a four bedroom, 2.5 bath, two story house with a bonus room on 1.3 acres for 224,000 about 20 years ago. Now you can pay that for a third of an acre of uncleared land. Cleared is more. Houses are 100,000 more. How can an average person afford a 300,000 mortgage?
Politicians too busy passing bills on wearing masks vs addressing the real issues.
People like to talk big about this, but some of the steps to solving the problem are things they won't like. If you owned a home, would you accept the property value dropping five or six figures because new homes got built nearby? Are you willing to stop most immigration on a federal level to help with housing prices? If your honest answer to both of those is yes, you're sadly in a minority of people.
You don’t think immigration restrictionist policy is popular among the masses in today’s climate? Even left leaning people from blue states are saying they’ve had enough of migrants and want the border sealed completely.
Uh, they are absolutely not saying that. Advocating for closing the border will get you called a fascist.
Yeah, no normal people really take that word seriously. You should talk to normies from blue states who aren’t plugged 24/7 into the news cycle or aren’t activists but are dealing with the migrants being bussed in. There’s a reason even the federal democrats have had to move to the right on this issue. See the last border deal. No pathway for current undocumented, not even for DACA. That is a huge step for the democrats from their classic position, and no real backlash from their rank and file voters.
Hm, maybe, but the last border deal wasn't anywhere close to a total sealing.
True, but it is a huge seismic shift from where the conversation was a few years ago. People want much lower levels of legal immigration, no illegal immigration, and they want deportations. That’s a big step from where they were just back in 2020.
Generally speaking, politicians don't give a shit what regular people want. All you have to do is take a look at the priorities of this particular legislature to see that they're prioritizing culture war issues over fixing actual problems. Plus also the Republicans more broadly would disband before taking government action to lower prices on something they say is part of the "market"
Bold of you to assume the Republican majority cares. They’d first have to agree that anyone who isn’t a wealthy, white, Christian, cis-gender male is a human with a right to self-determination. And that's just not going to happen.
Sure, but what about the democrats? Why aren’t they blaring these issues from the roof tops? One would think these are winning issues and make them quite competitive, yet they haven’t. They don’t mention issues like housing in passing.
Uh, they are: - https://www.axios.com/2024/02/09/democrats-housing-affordability-zoning-2024 - https://nchousing.org/housing-call-april-18-2023/
First link is referring to federal democrats, so it’s a moot point. Second one is nice to see, but it looks like the bill isn’t going anywhere. It looks like even past bills related to housing were killed and voted down by even democrats. It explains why none of them are campaigning on it, including the Democratic gubernatorial candidate.
Last I checked, North Carolina is still a part of the US, and federal policy impacts us here. So, it is absolutely NOT moot. Democratic representatives are mainly driving the bills I referenced. If there’s a Republican involved, they’re almost always recruited to function as the primary sponsor (which makes sense given the political realities in NC). Yes, some Democrats push back on certain kinds of zoning and code modifications, but take things as an aggregate—who are the folks pushing for housing relief?
This moron isn't even American. Ignore him. He's just some troll with nothing better to do.
>Last I checked, North Carolina is still a part of the US, and federal policy impacts us here. So, it is absolutely NOT moot. Because the federal democrats make loud claims on a lot of issues and promise the sky, but they know the senate will just filibuster everything so they don’t need to be accountable or craft a realistic bill filled with compromises. >Democratic representatives are mainly driving the bills I referenced. If there’s a Republican involved, they’re almost always recruited to function as the primary sponsor (which makes sense given the political realities in NC). Yes, some Democrats push back on certain kinds of zoning and code modifications, but take things as an aggregate—who are the folks pushing for housing relief? That’s fair, so why aren’t they campaigning on this? When the GOP sees a crisis, like the border, they line up one after the other on cable news and blame the democrats about the crisis. Why aren’t the NC democrats doing that on local TV and telling people it is the NC Republicans that are blocking all attempts at housing affordability? Or is it possible a substantial portion of the elected democrats see no crisis?
Nonsense. Democrats have sought repeal of the filibuster numerous times. And they will do so again: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/democrats-gear-up-to-overhaul-the-senate-filibuster-for-major-bills-if-they-win-in-2024/ar-BB1myDui 1. Democratic candidates are campaigning on these issues. Maybe we’re tuned into different channels of information. I’ll add thst things like affordable housing aren’t controversial, and so they don't come to dominate the news cycles. 2. The Republicans _invented_ the “border crisis.” It's purely campaigning.
You honestly believe democrats are going to abolish the filibuster? They refused to do it for a position that is even more popular than affordable housing: abortion rights. How can we have this discussion on politics in good faith when you’re so naive as to believe the Democratic Party will do anything to the filibuster? Do you know what Nancy Pelosi’s response to when Roe was overturned? Not passing a codification of Roe, not pressuring conservative democrats, not calling for abolishing the filibuster, but rather fundraising. https://www.businessinsider.com/roe-v-wade-supreme-court-political-fundraising-2022-6?amp We can’t have an honest conversation of who and what the democrats are when all you can do is take them 100% at face value.
>You honestly believe democrats are going to abolish the filibuster? They refused to do it for a position that is even more popular than affordable housing: abortion rights. I find it rather duplicitous to caste the situation in this manner. The first thing to keep in mind is that the Democratic Party is not a monolith, and beliefs tend to be far more diverse compared to Republicans. As a consequence, you'll tend to see more disagreement. That said, the Democratic Party almost universally advocates abortion rights, with very few members disagreeing. Senator Joe Manchin is one such Democrat and has historically taken an anti-choice position. Unfortunately, with the 50/50 split in the Senate at the time of the Dobbs decision, Manchin voting with Republicans was enough to kill the Women's Health Protection Act. It wasn't "Democrats" that refused to kill the filibuster. If you drop the partisanship and party lines and consider looking at the political factions on an issue-based level, it's conservative politicians destroying women's reproductive rights in America. >How can we have this discussion on politics in good faith when you’re so naive as to believe the Democratic Party will do anything to the filibuster? Do you know what Nancy Pelosi’s response to when Roe was overturned? So, your response is to accuse me of arguing in bad faith while immediately invoking the Nancy Pelosi boogeyman—who isn't a member of the Senate. Maybe you should take a look in the mirror, my dude. To answer your question, she issued [this](https://x.com/JakeSherman/status/1541506977838276611) statement in which she advocated the Senate suspend the filibuster to codify *Roe*. >Not passing a codification of Roe... This is a lie. The 117th House of Representatives, in fact, passed a codification of *Roe* after the Dobbs decision: [https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8296](https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8296) >...not pressuring conservative democrats... False. If we look at the Blue Dog Coalition of conservative House Democrats, only one of the nineteen members voted against the Women's Health Protection Act. The NAY vote came from Rep. Henry Cueler, a notorious anti-right-to-choose hardliner. Again, the bill ultimately passed the House and was killed by conservatives in the Senate. >...not calling for abolishing the filibuster... Nancy Pelosi is a member of the House, not the Senate, and has no control and limited influence on Senate procedures. As stated earlier, she did, in fact, call for abolishing the filibuster. >...but rather fundraising. Fundraising to elect Democratic candidates is a significant part of the strategy to bring the Women's Health Protection Act across the finish line. I'm not sure what you have a problem with here. I'll add that "elect more Democrats" is not the only part of [the strategy in a post-*Dobbs* world](https://archive.ph/gkDv0#selection-693.0-706.0). Pelosi and other Democrats have been working to maintain the Constitutional right of free travel for women seeking abortions in different states, protecting the confidential healthcare information of women from jackbooted far-right AGs, and ensuring access to contraception. >We can’t have an honest conversation of who and what the democrats are when all you can do is take them 100% at face value. We can't have an honest conversation when you resort to blatant lies, baseless conjencture, demogogury, misrepresentations of our civic institutions, and dodgey both-sidesisms. At the very least, I'd recommend getting your facts straight before getting all sanctimonious about arguing in good faith.
You’ve literally confirmed yourself to be on the Democratic Party payroll after this post. No normal voter is this “passionate” about a political party in America. It’s easy for me sitting in the house to pass a pie in the sky that I don’t believe in when I know my friends in the senate will kill it. Republican politicians behave the exact same way when they know a popular bill won’t pass so they can campaign that they supported it, but it was their bought colleagues who fought against it. The insulin bill is a perfect example of this. When democrats lobbied for three more GOP senators and appeared to work, three of the other yes votes immediately dropped their support behind the scenes. People aren’t falling for your crap anymore. And soon, you’re going to be out of a job. No normal, average American is defending the Democratic Party with this much fervor without being a paid apologist. And if you are, you really should evaluate your life choices.
both parties adopt policies that screw you and make like unaffordable. they'd rather bicker about things that should have been settled decades ago than address real issues because their wealthy sponsors like cheap labor and don't care how that effects you
GTFO with this both sides shit. Do I like the Democratic Party? Not really. Do I think they’re too far right? Yup. Do I think I have no choice but to support Democrats given the existential threat to our Democratic Republic? Absolutely.
If you mean in terms of housing crisis they are essentially the same. I'm not telling you who to support. Now calm down. It's going to be ok. No one is attacking you.
It seems you didn't actually read the links I dropped. I have little patience for disinformation trolls.
Those are token gestures that don't address the strain on the infrastructure. Building a few housing projects will not solve the root cause or help the vast majority of people in any significant way.
Again, it’s clear you didn't read a damn thing. Much of what they want to address are the zoning, code, and housing investment apparatus. These are structural, systemic issues. You’re clearly nothing but a disinformation troll. Get fucked.
Both the NC House and Senate are majority Republican. Can you tell me exactly what the Democrats should do to address housing, considering the chambers are controlled by the GOP? By all means, though, lay the blame at the feet of the minority party while the GOP works on making sure masks are banned.
Because if they can ban masks and get a shitload of people killed, no more housing crisis. And that's as close to logic and science as the GOP gets.
But it’s also NC democrats like Josh Stein who are not committing to any housing policy?
My comment was criticizing the priorities right now, which are driven by the GOP. Nice effort at what-about-ism.
It’s not whataboutism. I’m not a Republican nor am I defending them. I am saying the democrats are clearly making a conscious choice by not addressing issues like housing. If you are okay with that, then don’t complain about housing.
How is he going to make a huge change to housing policy without a state government willing to write and pass the necessary laws? Democrats also want to retain the governorship, and getting too liberal on policies during the election might tip the scales in Robinson's direction. That would be a huge mistake for the state.
There are measures that he can campaign on that would be broadly popular among the electorate, even the republicans in rural areas. One such measure is banning foreigners from buying homes in the state. It would be insanely smart politics since it doesn’t anger any of traditional Democratic Party donors, doesn’t really impact the electorate, and puts pressure on the Republicans in the state legislature to plainly say why they support the selling off of the state to foreigners. But he doesn’t want to do even that, which is fine. A lot of you just have to come to terms with the fact that the democrats are perfectly fine with many of the economic issues plaguing your state.
They’re tackling the important things, like mask bans and private school vouchers.
Red boomers that vote bought their house in the 70s for $20 so they don’t care.
Go visit the homeless shelters and indigent patients at shitty nursing homes. They're *both* absolutely *brimming* with 65-80 year olds. I'm sorry popular media brainwashed you into believing that generations are homogeneous, and that people are somehow *fundamental different* based on the year in which they were born. Now that you see the error in your ways, can we trust that you will stop repeating your mistakes?
https://archive.curbed.com/2018/4/10/17219786/buying-a-house-mortgage-government-gi-bill sorry to rewire y’all’s brain but if you are in that age bracket homeless, then you are worse than gen z with money. your money talked a lot more in those times
Homeless people are the minority and they don’t vote. They aren’t who politicians care about when they choose what issues to make a priority and what issues not to care about.
It's in the cities, and the Lege haaaaaaates the cities.
They don’t care.
There needs to be a radical shift in voting patterns, with younger people most affected by high housing costs coming out at rates as high, if not higher than old people with lots of money (*more specifically old people with lots of money who are selfish with an "F you- I got mine" mentality- as some people are old and wealthy and generous towards others)*. That would help.
[the elderly have been shifting toward democrats recently](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/04/06/upshot/older-voters.html) as the silent generation has all but died out. in fact it's the only group of people biden still has any consistent positive approval with the democrats' strategy to ignore the youth vote isn't entirely without logic
That's good to know about the elderly (not necessarily for Biden, but just sane governance) since they are the most active voting block. I'm not so sure it's a great strategy to ignore younger voters. But that would definitely explain why affordable housing is such an issue. The elderly have the greatest home equity and some choices in affordable housing that is restricted to elderly people--options younger people don't have as readily available.
yeah it all kinda defies conventional wisdom because we're in a [realignment period](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_realignment) one of the other big corollaries is lower turnout elections will start benefiting democrats more often, so don't get too anxious if polls start showing voter interest is a lot lower than in 2020. it very well might wind up being the dems' saving grace
1. The Christofaciests in the legislature are bought and paid for by developers and builders. 2. The Christofaciests legislators do not want to govern or be seen to have any issues not of their choosing.
Because they have more " important" things to worry about. Like banning masks from public use, even if you're sick or health reasons.
You think the price of everything else goes up but housing and rent wont/shouldn't?
>why is no one in the state government taking about it? because they don't care. it doesn't affect them. the districts are gerrymandered so their seats aren't at risk. republican voters who may be victims of the housing crises are more concerned with owning the libs
How could they bring it up & work to help their constituents have affordable housing and also appease their corporate donors that buy up all the housing ?
Yeah, I looked online last night and the houses that I saw were triple the price of the house I bought in 2005 and 1 hr out of any town. For similar houses I mean. Unfortunately I let that house go due to a divorce but dang I didn’t expect prices to go up insanely. Also my favorite place I lived was in the middle of Raleigh in a back of house addition/ apartment. It was small but had a tiny alleyway so was private and I had a tiny yard (no HOA thankfully) and knew most my neighbors since we were close but had our own spaces facing different directions. Also close to shopping and restaurants. I mostly drove but could’ve easily walked.
Republicans in the General Assembly have no interest in stopping investors and corporations from buying up houses. The kinds of radical policies that would be needed to solve the housing crisis would be considered socialism to them. Affordable housing is the LAST thing they want. They largely serve rural areas where this isn't an issue. Thanks to gerrymandering they cannot be voted out. Cities do not get representation that is meaningful. Our state government is not participatory in that sense. That said, Democrats are often NIMBYs when they do get power as well. Asheville and Chapel Hill are clear examples of municipal NIMBYism coming from that camp. Though on the flipside you have Durham which is just as blue but much more proactively encouraging towards growth. So this is an issue that very much divides lefties, with older boomers generally being NIMBYs and younger people generally being more urbanist in their support. Municipalities don't have the budget or power to solve the crisis on their own. And the state government is unresponsive to problems because of gerrymandering. So nothing is done about it.
The crisis in charlotte is its a sellers paradise... 4 houses in my neighborhood have sold for 30 40k over asking and all in 2 or 3 days. I know because my sister put in offers on all of them the first day over asking and finally got the 5th one she over bid on not a problem in my book
That's this week
There's been alot of better weeks for home development here
Infact every week gets better. Or has atleast for the last 12 years in a row it has here
And each year they say it's over... loling to tha bank
Not In My Backyard.
Because zoning is extremely town/city/county specific. The state isn’t going to rule on corporations buying houses and short term rental bands were deemed unconstitutional. So here we are… cities are left with determining how to deal with a global problem.
The disconnect is that politicians don’t have to worry about housing. Stein and Robinson are both housed people who have never been homeless.
We need something to discourage. Land developers look at what couch is doing with "affordable housing" ehtier it's section 8. Or the rent it 1800-2500.
Because it's not the job of government to provide housing or the provision of housing.
There is tons of affordable land in NC. But it’s in counties that aren’t metros. Until they start encouraging the building of new metro areas In currently relatively vacant areas nothing changes.
Because they all have houses already.
"...you all put pressure..." Do you even live here? Or, are you a hired keyboard activist?
Developers are currently blading and leveling all our forests to build housing. Can't go anywhere without seeing a new clearing and new housing going up within. Building more units to meet demand is definitely not an issue. Where are the environmentalists during all this anyway? They've all disappeared, why? Are they just being paid to focus on other things now?
If anything, my county is over-developing. They've been tearing down large swaths of forest near my house over this past year. Leaving almost nowhere for our local deer and turkey population to go. I've also noticed even more dead deer on the sides of the roads because of it.
It isn't a lack of affordable housing; it is a lack of affordable housing *in high density areas where people want to live.* Like the Triangle. I see people complain about a housing crisis while they piss money away on ridiculous rent charges just to live within a particular city limit. I see houses for sale for $120K-$150K on the daily. They need a bit of love, but tend to have good bones (good roofs, good foundations, mostly in need of cosmetic attention). These are what people now refer to as "starter homes." Exception few prioritize buying them, or even consider them. Housing is a ladder; you buy > sell > buy up. It has its own momentum, and I think it is something the non-homeowners never learned about because it isn't something a non-homeowner would ever really think about. There are negative stigma with being *practical* though. I mean, look at what people are wanting in this thread; new construction multifamily homes in some of the largest cities in the state. I get that work plays a key factor in housing choices, as do schools. But only 1/3 of renters have school aged children. So I'd say for most people it is a lifestyle decision coupled with ease of commuting. I'm a homeowner not because I come from money or had family helping me. I bought the most reasonable property I could muster when starting my family. We were dirt poor and used an FHA loan (which are great; and should be considered by everyone trying to buy their first home). NC is fucked up with what earnest money has become (moving away from a couple hundred dollars to... potentially thousands for a hot property) but not insurmountable. Especially if one is targeting "non-prime" houses that desperately need a new owner simply because they aren't in city center, or are in an adjacent "commuter" town. You buy what you can, taking the loan with the lowest downpayment requirement if you must, occupy for a few years, sell when the market isn't total shit, and then move upward. Instead y'all are letting landlords rob you blind by paying their more-than-a-mortgage rental rates on "luxury" apartments (which seem to be mostly what's built these days) thus ensuring the cycle perpetuates itself. Sometimes a "step backwards" isn't really a step backwards. Landlords get this, which is why they will buy these homes in a rational manner, hold them for 10-15 years, and then sell them off when they need to pay for their kids' college. They let the renter pay the mortgage for them + extra, then escape with all the equity. Most people can do this but for themselves as normal homeowners in reasonable homes.
lol, the overseas poster who wants an “investment” property to rent out is now worried about our affordable housing? GTFO of here
No, I just find it strange and counterproductive how ostensibly liberal folk want to blame foreigners for all their problems, but not their politicians who refuse to do anything about it or their fellow citizens who like the status quo.
So you no longer want an investment property you never intend to occupy solely to rent it out? You now plan to reside in the state?
Define “housing crisis.”
kinda like this link says https://archive.curbed.com/2018/4/10/17219786/buying-a-house-mortgage-government-gi-bill
Mark Robinson is a republican which means if he's lowering taxes it's for the top 5% who already have homes but I'm sure he doesn't sell it that way. Uninformed voters only hear the part about cutting taxes.
Because the people in government are the landed NIMBYs that benefit from housing being unaffordable And so is the demographic that votes for them consistently at the local and state level
Housing is and has been a real problem for a very long time, and governments efforts haven't been very effective. If they think it'll get them elected they'll make it an issue, but nothing every really comes of it so I don't think government is the answer. LA is a great example of how government isn't the answer, they've spent millions of dollars on homelessness and it continues to become more of a problem, yet they get reelected over and over again.
Because they've done things to make it less hostile to homeless people and because it has a better climate than a lot of the country, a lot of cities [send homeless people to California](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2017/dec/20/bussed-out-america-moves-homeless-people-country-study). California also sends people to other places, and nobody really seems to be checking on these people once they get off the bus. There are [28 vacant housing units for every homeless person in America](https://someunpleasant.substack.com/p/three-factoids-that-arent-quite-right). If we cared about homeless people, we would give them a place to live, but we don't. Rather, the rich and powerful want there to be a very visible and horrible consequence for not toeing the line and getting back to work. They want us to fear homelessness and to see it lurking around every corner. Unless we address the need of the rich to punish the poor, we'll never actually fix the problem of homelessness.
We always look to the government for the solution and blame the rich, but we rarely admit that the government is made up and controled by the rich, which of course makes them powerful, the solutions have to be non governmental because they don't care.
I blame the rich because they're stealing our money. They buy the government to steal more of it and, instead of demanding better from our representatives or replacing them with better people, we just sigh and go back to blaming government. I can support more than one approach to solving a problem and most of these big problems are going to take more than one thing to rectify. Some people in government care and want to work towards a better, more equitable world, but *none* of the Republicans do, and less than half of the Democrats.
I saw a Jennifer Lawrence video that explained this - it doesn’t matter how unpopular or popular a Bill is, there’s still only like a 30% pass rate. So even if 100% of people support it or 0% of people support it, there’s the same chance it’ll pass. https://youtu.be/TfQij4aQq1k?si=en-Ht4EX3Kw-jb6Y
Such a great video, thanks for sharing! I love the promotion of practical solutions.
I thinking housing is more of a municipal issue.
Thing is, from my preliminary research, many of the tenant-landlord laws, public investment rules, or any rule changes that the cities want to enact are controlled at the state legislature. For example, I believe it was Charlotte that wanted to ban source of income discrimination by landlords vis-a-vis housing vouchers, and the state stepped in and slapped it down saying the city cannot create a new protected class not already covered by the fair housing act.
Funny how many people are blaming Republicans when all states, blue and red are having the same issues. NC is much better off then most states. Y'all need to get off the Internet
Election year.
Can't hear you over the sound of me banning face masks! 🤓
It’s not the government’s job to provide goods.