"Imagine thinking that owning a home has more negatives than positives."

It does, for some people. Some people can't do their own maintenance, some people don't want to argue with tradespeople who don't show up on time, do a crappy job, or charge more than they said they would. Some people work on a contract position, and don't know if they will be rehired next year - and if not, they will have to move (ask any sessional lecturer at university). Some people would rather deal with a landlord than a bank (you think your bank can't charge you more for your mortgage? Ha!).

In short, some people are not you.

Renters who want to own a house are often stuck in a bad cycle, where they can't afford the down payment and are forced to pay rental prices, which tend to be quite a bit more than a mortgage would be. Which then cuts into their ability to save for a down payment, and so on. And as home prices and rentals skyrocket, they fall further and further behind.

Where I used to live, I would need $100k for a downpayment on a starter home, and yes there are ways to buy a home with less than 20% down, but in the competitive real estate market the last few years, a lower downpayment makes an offer less attractive, especially compared to the all-cash offers that are frequently seen. Not to mention there are bidding wars now, and people who need a mortgage to buy a house have restraints on how much they can borrow.

Implying that renters are somehow lesser is not fair. Not everyone has $500k sitting around, and many of the few affordable homes that come onto market are scooped up by all-cash corporations or house flippers.

@palimpsest I'm not a multimillionaire like you and all your friends. My mortgage is my only debt however. I did feel like a boss buying my last car outright with cash, especially as all my friends and co workers lament on their payments.

@gardengal48 (PNW Z8/9) I just learned a new phrase, thank you.

@Toronto Veterinarian My bank cannot adjust my P or I. My insurance or taxes can go up, sure.

It seems the thread might have began with a visualization of an ADU being built in an established neighborhood not designed to allow for typical access to the ADU, and where an ADU might stand out from the existing physical fabric and culture of that neighborhood. Conversation evolving to what the software aggregators of service, like Airbnb or Vrbo, mine from communities.

Here are 6 situations I am connected to where people used those services just within the last few months:

- destination traveler looking for uniqueness, stayed in an old firehouse (with pole!)

- destination traveler looking for a place not near the airport, convention center, or near strip malls (e.g. where most hotels are located)

- professional for a month-long training wanting to feel at home, not walking past the front desk and going down a long hallway of doors every day

- group of crafters for a shut-in weekend with lots of table space

- off-roading destination group needing vehicle security, firepit availability, large yard for dogs

- extended large family at DisneyWorld wanting more outdoor pool privacy and self-cooking accomodations

Their needs could only be provided by STRs, and the free market didn't disappoint, all had great success and experiences. They didn't have to pay any taxes like for the convention center or Chamber of Commerce, but I personally don't blame them and they are not trying to skirt any law. That is a larger conversation about taxation and policy; it also applies to electric cars not paying a gas tax, or homeowners selling/shipping goods on Facebook Marketplace beyond having a physical garage sale in the summer.

@Chi

I feel for those trying to save but got hit hard by the pandemic. Especially with how nuts the housing market is right now. The same home that I just had built is an extra $80k on contract from summer of 2020.

And yea renting = giving someone else profit that you could be using for yourself.

"And yea renting = giving someone else profit that you could be using for yourself."

You are already giving profit to someone else - the bank - for that mortgage you're paying. The question remains, is it better, long term, to put, say, $100,000 cash into a house, deal with ongoing costs and taxes, and pay the bank that interest on the mortgage, or is it better to keep renting and invest that $100,000 in a market fund. Not many people do that calculation, but a disciplined investor may well get better long term financial results than the house owner.

The "rent" vs "own" argument is more complex than you think it is.

Just want to raise my hand and say that renters at my STR pay 11% occupancy tax. Or I collect it or however you wish to report it. The property tax is also paid. The occupancy tax winds up being more than the property tax so our municipality loves STR's. For sure, the property value would be less if we weren't allowed to have STR so the property tax is also somewhat supported by STRs. Heck, as a rental, they make us have 2 trash bins which costs ... twice as much.

I made the comment about younger folks and buying a home. Because the wise older folks already have a home so when the pricing climbs 50%, they can afford a home. They do even better because they are downsizing in an overheated market - the best thing to do.

The older folks are also retired (mostly) and so that don't need to be in a reasonable commute to work. They also (all) do not have children so school district doesn't matter.

So, yeah - housing affordability is mostly an issue for younger folks. Doesn't mean there aren't struggling older folks but there is no equivalence when it comes to overall populations. If someone rented there whole life, then they are in trouble too. But an 18 year old or fresh college graduate has zero home equity (of their own) no matter what.

disclaimer - we own a STR

Bees-need one of the biggest problems with STRs is that they are part of the underground economy. Many are rented directly by the owners who may live in the area or may live a thousand miles away. The owners may not even be aware they should be paying local, lodging and other taxes. There are many who don’t claim the income on their taxes because there are no reporting documents such as 1099MISC sent to the IRS.

Cobalty, You my want to read up on economics. Robert Shiller of Yale has done a great deal of work on the topic of owning versus renting. The world is not as simple as you think it is. Here is a primer:

One of the most well-known experts on long-term home price movements is Robert Shiller, a professor at Yale University. His summary of research on home price movements during 100-year periods using the repeat-sales method (only including price movements of the same properties) shows that the very long-term trend is that home prices stay constant with household incomes. And outside dense urban areas, upward price movements are limited by construction costs. Based on this, countries with strong price increases in recent years should expect the supply to increase as well until prices fall back to the long-term trend.

https://www.morningstar.com/articles/1009439/is-renting-throwing-away-money

PS And seriously, are you aware of how many times you pay the bank for that mortgage? That is a real cost for those who are not cash buyers. The return on the interest saved on a mortgage, invested in a mutual fund over the last 30 years is nothing to sneeze at.

I think the issue here is not whether one chooses to stay in an Air B&B but whether those Air B&Bs are appropriately regulated and taxed. If they are, then fine; if the local council chooses not to regulate them, though, and/or the owner chooses not to report the income earned, then they can become a blight on the neighborhood (noise, rowdy parties, etc) and a drain on the local economy (undercutting legitimate hotels and motels that create actual employment).

As with innovations like Facebook, Uber and Afterpay, it takes time for governments and regulatory agencies to catch up, so exploitation, abuse and tax evasion will occur. The Wild West didn't last forever and neither will the wild west of unregulated ADUs or equivalent.

"And yea renting = giving someone else profit that you could be using for yourself"

You're not giving it away to your landlord any more than you are giving it away to the bank. In fact, it could be said that you can buy more with rent than with a mortgage payment, given that your mortgage payment includes interest, fees, and possibly mortgage insurance.

The reality is that you're buying things with rental payments that some people really want -- buying liquidity, freedom from home maintenance, and more options for smaller homes that are hard to find in many locations. (That last one is why I'm considering it - I want to move closer to work, but I don't want to buy a 2500+ sq ft house, which is more than I need or want to maintain.)

If you take 15 years to pay off a $500,000 mortgage at 3%, you'll pay at least $125,000 to the bank in fees and taxes, etc. If it's 30 years, you'd be paying twice that, assuming that you have a fixed interest rate for 30 years on your mortgage (unlikely). That's what I call giving someone else profit that you could be using for yourself.

@Toronto Veterinarian Don't be dense, the same house will have more of a rent than a mortgage due to the landlord having to cover said mortgage with the rent.

I will pay about $144k in taxes over my 30 year term to my bank. It sucks, and I disagree with how the interest is frontloaded in the loan term rather than linear. Thanks politicians and big bankers.

However I'm not beholden to some dead beat trash landlord if I want to upgrade my own home or whatever. You all sound like you work for Blackrock.

"Daddy Landlord, my counters are from 1970, can you update them? Pwetty pwetty please?"

As a landlord I’m fairly offended by your comment. Lots of really great people own places and rent them out to equally great tenants. Wow

I'm sure you are a great landlord. I'd rather be the "driver" and not the "passenger" in that relationship. Thats all.

Its a free country, I have no issues with renters, I just couldn't imagine having the constant fear of getting my home sold out from under me, happened to a co-worker.

• "Everyone that I know who rents has $1,000 car payments a month on multiple vehicles and lives in a trash house in a trash neighborhood
  
• "Daddy Landlord, my counters are from 1970, can you update them? Pwetty pwetty please?"

• "I did feel like a boss buying my last car outright with cash, especially as all my friends and co workers lament on their payments.

Geez, I dunno, with the apparent friends you have and the apparent housing stock in your area, you make a "drug/crime ridden cesspit" sound awfully attractive in comparison

Does your city have an interactive online poop map? I bet it does.

No, actually the vast majority of people here --even trashy ones with car payments-- have indoor plumbing connected to a municipal sewer. It may be too advanced for the rental properties in your location, but soon, maybe.

Can’t wait!

Maybe soon we can have some of that electricity so I can stop using all these candles.

Car payments aren't really a bad thing if your credit is good. I chose not to buy my last car in cash because I was offered a very low interest rate, and would make more investing that money. I took a 60 month loan, paid it monthly and enjoyed the extra investment growth and the credit score boost.

My point is that not owning a home is not a character flaw. Poverty is not a character flaw. The "poverty line" and the ability for home ownership varies by the Cost of Living of the area. I grew up in a working class town. Virtually everybody who lived in a traditional nuclear intact family unit owned their own houses because even decent houses were dirt cheap.(Of course houses there are a terrible investment, too, because land values don't appreciate) People who live perfectly comfortably there would be below the poverty line here. I currently live in a relatively HCOLA. Less people own because it is more expensive to buy here, no more no less, and it includes people from all levels of income. And if I lived in Manhattan or San Francisco and made the same income, even adjusted, I would probably rent because it that much more expensive. And, in turn, people who live comfortably where I live would live Uncomfortably in Manhattan or San Francisco. It doesn't matter if Manhattan or San Francisco is a crime/drug ridden cesspit or not, that's Irrelevant to the discussion, because the reality is some people Want to live there despite their problems, some people Have to live there. You would rather live in a shoe box than those places. Great, but that doesn't have anything to do with the cost of living there vs. the cost of living where you live. My job does not exist where I grew up. Sure I would like to own my same house for about 10% of the price I paid for it here. But then I wouldn't have my job. You are apparently lucky enough to live in an area where you think home ownership is accessible to all who want it, and the people who don't have it, there is something the matter with them. You're lucky to live in and to want to live in an area where it is apparently that easy. Not everyone is so lucky, nor has everyone the opportunity to be able to move to a place like that, even if they wanted to.

"@Toronto Veterinarian Don't be dense, the same house will have more of a rent than a mortgage due to the landlord having to cover said mortgage with the rent."

That's only true if the mortgage rates are the same, which is far from given, and mortgage payments are not affected nearly as much by supply and demand. Then again, mortgage payments don't include taxes and maintenance costs, but rent does. It's really not an apples-to-apples comparison.

"However I'm not beholden to some dead beat trash landlord if I want to upgrade my own home or whatever. You all sound like you work for Blackrock."

I don't know who Blackrock is, but a renter isn't beholden to a landlord.....a renter can move as soon as the next few months if they want something else. On the other hand, an owner is beholden to the real estate market - if an owner wants to move, they have to consider if the market is offering a good time to sell - whether they'll need to take a loss on their property for a quick sell, etc.

It's not that I believe renting is better than owning (I own a home myself), it's just that I don't believe owing is better than renting either. They each have their costs and benefits, and different people will weight those pro and cons differently, at different times of their lives.

So this is a popular thing in your area? Good or bad, what can you do about it? Nothing -- don't waste energy on what you can't control.

@Toronto Veterinarian- If local municipalities aren't imposing some kind of taxing regime on STRs then they're foolish. The STRs would still be cheaper than hotels because there isn't a host of staff running around to satisfy every whim of the guests. (Meanwhile, those staff are still being employed by the hotels to cater to their guests, so they're not losing their jobs because of evil STR customers.)

Tenants in an STR do not necessarily create more trash or use the roads/other services any more than a long term tenant in the same property would. In fact I suspect a lot would use public transport to avoid the hassle and expense of renting a car and driving in a strange city, so the coffers of the public transport companies and ride shares/taxis would gain customers they wouldn't otherwise have. And they're less likely to be making the kinds of purchases that generate a lot of trash- most of their trash would be food waste from any self catering and a few incidentals like tissues and the like. Factor in the times that the STR is empty and not generating any trash and the overall result would be more likely to be putting less pressure on municipal services.

Go ahead and feel noble staying in hotels, but your reasoning for this is flawed.

Mrs Pete. Rules can be changed and people can impact that change. Our neighboring town passed a law recently making nightly and weekend STR illegal. This was because of concerned citizens that were negatively impacted by these rentals near them lobbying and making others aware.

They didn't waste their energy and their neighborhoods are better for it.

"Go ahead and feel noble staying in hotels, but your reasoning for this is flawed."

I never said I did feel noble for staying in a hotel vs a STR -- you must be thinking of someone else, or you need to improve your reading comprehension ;)

Just curious how many people read the article on the "fixers" that work for AirBnB covering up sexual assaults, murders and other illicit activity happening at their properties? Literally bribing people to keep quiet.

I'll stick to my hotels.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-06-15/airbnb-spends-millions-making-nightmares-at-live-anywhere-rentals-go-away

Don't you think that many businesses (including hotels) try to minimize the effects of incidents leading to bad press?

Never heard of any bribing their guests or making them sign NDAs.

But yes noone wants bad press.

Never heard of any bribing their guests

I think it is commonplace and an accepted practice for hotels to comp a room, or upgrade to a fancier room, to make up for an error or deficit? IDK what hotels would do for serious criminal activity, I imagine they would make a point of cooperating with the authorities, but I would think they would have made plans also to provide ssistance to affected customers.

Yikes, I hate when people paint renters with the same brush. It's not a blanket assumption that renters are poor, broke, in debt, slovenly, their homes are eyesores, etc etc.

I live in a small apartment bldg owned by a wonderful family.

To help them out, I shovel the sidewalks (a corner lot) and the parking lot while they're at work. Heavy snow of course, they use the snow-blower. They appreciate it and I enjoy shoveling.

All of the apartment bldgs on my street are meticulously maintained, with flowerbeds, trees etc.

This summer I was selling something online and when they came to get it, they both marveled at the area. They live out of town, and wondered if any were available to rent.

Years ago I was in sales, and met with people in their homes. I learned early on not to get my hopes up when I saw a nice large home with high-end cars in the driveway. Often they were maxed out and living on a line-of-credit. It happens a lot.

"Just curious how many people read the article on the "fixers" that work for AirBnB covering up sexual assaults, murders and other illicit activity happening at their properties? Literally bribing people to keep quiet.

I'll stick to my hotels."

Because no one has ever been sexually assaulted in a hotel...

---

Every business does the same calculation on reaching a settlement. I can assure you that hotels are no different.

Very early on in the Airbnb days, there were host houses where you would be sleeping in the same room as the host. I swear I recall reading at least one where the situation was you would be sharing the same bed. I wonder how that worked out.

Palaimpsest - that seems very much like medieval times, when it was expected that travelers would share beds...

@cobalty2004 said, "Don't be dense, the same house will have more of a rent than a mortgage due to the landlord having to cover said mortgage with the rent.

I will pay about $144k in taxes over my 30 year term to my bank. It sucks, and I disagree with how the interest is frontloaded in the loan term rather than linear. Thanks politicians and big bankers."

There is quite a bit of misconception in those two sentences.

First, as for "politicians and big bankers" frontloading interest, it has nothing to do with politics or big banks getting their way. Nor would having linear interest be better, it would actually be a whole lot worse.

What is actually front loaded is the amount you owe. Your interest rate is constant throughout the loan for a fixed rate mortgage. This system allows us to decrease the rates and remove early pay off penalties.

Here is how interest works. Suppose you borrow $100,000 at 3% rate, which gives you a payment of $421.60. Since you are making payments every month, your monthly interest rate is 0.25% ( 3% / 12 = 0.25%). So when you make the first payment you owe interest of $250 ($100,000 * 0.25% = $250), since your payment is $171.60 more than you owe, it reduces the principal by that much. So when you make the next month's payment you only owe interest of $249.57 because your principal was reduced to $99,828 and so now since you don't owe as much money, you don't owe as much interest. This continues through the loan because as you continue to pay less and less interest then you pay more and more on your principal.

----

Next, I believe the current average residential cap rate in the U.S. is about 5.75%. That means that a landlord on the average $200,000 rental property needs to clear about $960 in net monthly rentals on a $200,000 property (note that taxes, insurance, repairs and maintenance, etc. are excluded from that number). The principal and interest payment on that property would be about $880.00 per month. The average net rental premium for a $200,000 home in the U.S. currently is about $80. So you have to pay $80 for all home problems to not be your problem. We should note that $960 is taxable.

Cap rates are inversely correlated to house price increases. What renters are missing out on is the wealth generation of home ownership, but that doesn't necessarily mean they pay more. In fact, in most major metropolitan areas the rents are cheaper than ownership because appreciation makes up the gap.

The investment firms that are buying up housing are not investing for rental income. They are investing because there is a housing shortage and they expect the house prices themselves to increase and are using rental income to leverage their buying power for real estate appreciation.

I swear I recall reading at least one where the situation was you would be sharing the same bed. I wonder how that worked out.

https://about.couchsurfing.com/about/mobile/

Couchsurfing is amazing! Best thing for younger people on the planet. My kids couchsurfed through Europe and are planning on doing it again if things settle down (which seems unlikely). It is just guys, gals, and younger couples offering their sofa or in some cases a side of the bed to other young people. Most will feed you, often taking you out to great spots that locals love, they will give you the inside scoop on places to go, often if their weekend is free they will act as tour guides, and can drop you off when they head to work.

I wish I could pull it off now, but I am not sure many young people want me in their home.

Wow, the brushing of renters is really being contested in this thread. It is unfortunate that some folks seem to only encounter bad people that happen to be renting, and apparently don't encounter any bad people that are homeowners. It also seems to kind of leave out people that are homeowners and thus are good?, that go out and rent an STR for vacation which then makes them a bad renter?? Hotel renters are OK because they are renting just a room on a property and not a building or property rental itself?

STRs can be as good or bad as the municipality and it's ordances, regulations, and enforcement. Just like LTR or ownership can be good or bad depending on the municipality. In some places STR seems to be going not so well. But then take somewhere like Vale where a large of the village is rented out and it works very well most of the time. There are condo owners there that are required by their associations to rent out their units on STR basis. There are also folks that own homes and have ADU's on their property for folks to use.

Something I've noticed for a long while is a tendency for some folks to extrapolate their personal experiences to the entire country.

Kind of like the tendency of a lot of news media to report various polling results as applying to 'America'

"Often they were maxed out and living on a line-of-credit. It happens a lot."

I used to live in a neighbourhood of households I called "mortgage poor" - they had no savings and very little discretionary money - everything their earned was being spent on their home and cars. Living on loans, essentially......Some people think that's a normal and desirable way to live, but I'm not one of those people ;)

"Kind of like the tendency of a lot of news media to report various polling results as applying to 'America'"

No, not at all like that. By definition, it's not like that. Apparently you don't understand proper polling and sample collection.

Unfortunately I think it some areas people are forced into being house poor because of the HCOLA and since Suburban Home Ownership is the "American Dream" as least as it was promoted for white people in this country for so long, people buy into it. That said, I think the expectations of what people "need" in a proper house expands continually. You see it in the Building a Home forum on a daily basis, so there's that too. I have often asked the question in BAH forum about what the budget is for furniture and window treatments for this big house and it's like next to nothing "Because you Can't roll furniture into a mortgage" is the answer. Thus the 5000 sq foot houses with a Wayfair table and nothing else in the dining room for years.

No, not at all like that. By definition, it's not like that. Apparently you don't understand proper polling and sample collection.

I think the problem is that there often is NOT proper polling and sample collection. Like polls which state that "____ News is the most trusted, watched and accurate news in America" based upon polls of viewers who watch that news exclusively.

I DO know how polling is conducted and also that methods can vary widely. There are times when poll results are reported by national media as '1 in 5 Americans think that...' with no context as to what methods and calculations were used, or sample size. If we're lucky, they'll report the entity conducting the poll, and sometimes those doing the polling have a dog in the fight. Sometimes it's an online poll, which can be gamed.

"Thus the 5000 sq foot houses with a Wayfair table and nothing else in the dining room for years."

We had a ping pong table in our living room for years - it was a gift, and my parents didn't have much money for more formal living room furniture (we did have bedroom furniture, and a family room/den). Ahhh......the memories. But it wasn't a 5000 sq ft home - just under 2500 sq ft.

This thread has massively gotten off track. Lots of home choices for lots of people. Do what makes you happy. Rent, own, mortgage big time or don’t. Who really cares?! Back to the original ADU issue the fact is that if you buy in a single family area and it shifts the transition can be rocky. Change tends to always be liked by some and despised by others. It’s also inevitable though.

We have always lived in urban neighborhoods with a mix of housing, and never regretted doing so.

And yes, I was a renter for the first 42 yrs of my life. My parents were never able to buy a home, despite wanting to.

Frankly, homeowning is a pain in the butt. If you're a DIYer, good for you. We're not, and in a HCOL area it's expensive to maintain a home properly. We do so, but on every street you can see a SFH or two that has been allowed to deteriorate. That's how we bought our home; the owners were elderly and couldn't maintain it before they became too ill to stay.

Rental properties - and that would include ADUs - are actually maintained better, because of competition. Slum landlords can only get away with crappy rentals in ungentrified areas, and there aren't many of those left in our town.

Because Asians and Latinos are more apt to have extended and/or close families, ADUs are a huge asset when selling in our state.

Currently at my location, building a 2nd house on a lot is not practiced. However, there are a few locations in Milwaukee, WI that has 2 houses on a lot. Those were built a long time ago in some ethnic neighborhoods. Most came about when a son or daughter married and did not have a house of their own, a house would be built on the back lot for them. In those times, certain groups were very family oriented. If, in the future, if the new family were able to get a house elsewhere, the back property would be converted into a rental or a mother-in-law home. Many of those lots had an alley that could be used as a convenient access. Subdivisions and new city lots that I see presently do not have alleys.

I don't know what arrangement for water and sewer were used for those back houses since in general, alleys do not have sewer or water lines.

I miss alleys behind homes! Great access to the back of the yard, and the garage. Even better in places where garbage pick up is done via that back alley. There are very few neighbourhoods in Toronto with back alleys :( but we lived in several while I was growing up.

The economy is always a factor in housing costs, whether you own or rent. When we sold our 'starter home' (of 30 years occupancy!), we were in a mild seller's market. I figured we'd 'made' 4% after deducting mortgage, RE taxes, maintenence, improvements. This was during a period when you could make 10% on a CD. Still, we had a nice home and were in control of the property. We'd paid off the mortgage and invested the sale proceeds in a new home we built and moved to in 2001.

Come 2008 and the revelation of the huge numbers of home 'owners' in all price ranges who were out on the street. You could buy a million dollar home here for $500K or less. In my town, north of Chicago, the RE market was sunk for years, and has only rebounded in the last two years -- largely boosted by the work from home boom, but it's nothing like the increases of other regions -- 11% is the last number I've heard.

Today a shortage of housing has driven the market up -- not a concern for homeowners not needing to move, but a big concern for younger people starting out and for renters, whose rents are rising. We paid more than expected for the Chicago two-flat where we invested Maui condo proceeds, but the sale was in a much more highly appreciated market than here.

I would always prefer to own a SFH after owning a condo and after renting during the first years of our marriage. I resist having others decide how or when to spend my money on maintenance or improvements. (That extends to 'Senior Living' buy-ins.)

Our home is a big portion of our net worth. Allowing ADUs or STRs in my neighborhood decreases the value of our home. It's simple self-interest -- as is improving and maintaining the two-flat we now own. We want to be able to attract good tenants for nice homes at fair rents. Good for us. Good for tenants. Good for that neighborhood.

Our home is a big portion of our net worth. Allowing ADUs or STRs in my neighborhood decreases the value of our home. It's simple self-interest --

This is absolutely a problem for the government to overcome (fed and state *can* overcome this problem.) The interest of the few taking precedence over the interest of society. Ezra Klein did an amazing podcast with a reporter from Vox on this topic. I cannot recommend listening to this episode highly enough!

https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5zaW1wbGVjYXN0LmNvbS84MkZJMzVQeA/episode/ZDk4N2RlNmMtZjE2Zi00MTUyLWE5MGEtZmRlNTIxMGViYjNi?sa=X&ved=0CAUQkfYCahcKEwjY5pr8t471AhUAAAAAHQAAAAAQAQ

"This is absolutely a problem for the government to overcome (fed and state *can* overcome this problem.)"

How so? I'm asking seriously, because I see this as a culture issue, and those are hard-pressed to be settled in any meaningful way by government. (Governments are great at stirring up culture conflicts, but less so at solving it, in my opinion.)

TV, I am short on time today, but briefly, the obstruction comes at the local and town level, where homeowners and moneyed interests can co-opt a Byzantine system intended to protect the environment and give the voiceless a say in what happens (think about the interstate highway system devestating poor communities.)

The state and federal government can override those rules in the US, by imposing overriding rules demanding a specific increase in housing. Politically dicey for a governor, perhaps, but rolled into a million different actions at the federal level and, I belive even spineless pols could find enough cover.

Do give the podcast a listen. The woman Klein interviews is fabulously knowledgeable and Klein brings a gimlet eye to the topic.

I listened to the podcast this morning, thanks for bringing it to "our" attention. It's worth listening to and delivers messages many may not want to hear. Very interesting and insightful opinions are presented that ring true. I found it hard to stop thinking about the Sierra Club while listening - an organization with a reasonable founding principle that has run amok with its recurring activism to oppose anything and everything proposed to be done anywhere.