this post was submitted on 27 Oct 2023
320 points (97.1% liked)

politics

19120 readers
2436 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
all 20 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com 49 points 1 year ago (3 children)

That's...actually a really good idea. Commercial real estate is always claimed to be tanking thanks to corporate work from home initiatives. So, turning into offices into homes can relatively immediately expand the supply of housing as opposed to the much costlier investment of developing houses from the ground up.

[–] SinningStromgald@lemmy.world 35 points 1 year ago (4 children)

The problem though isn't a lack of housing, we actually have plenty for everyone. The problem is corporations buying up homes to rent them and in the process jacking up home prices.

If all these newly made homes are left to the tender mercies of the market there won't be a slew of new homeowners. Just more rentals.

[–] AProfessional@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago

Well it is both, suburban hell doesn’t scale up, it’s meant to be exclusionary.

[–] PeleSpirit@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I've said this before, but Seattle actually had all of the rental corporations using one rental service that chose the prices for the rentals. Meaning, they were price fixing our rental market.

If you're a tourist market like Seattle, the corporations buying up apartment buildings for airbnb's is also a huge problem.

[–] vivadanang@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/real-estate/new-lawsuit-alleges-price-fixing-at-seattle-area-apartment-buildings/

Yup. This shit needs to be illegal nationwide. They literally encourage vacancies in order to keep pricing going upward and coordinate pricing in order to keep profits maximized. It's gross and these fucks should be vilified.

[–] MirthfulAlembic@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Location is a major issue. A lot of empty housing stock is in places no one wants to live in anymore. There is a lack of housing in high demand areas. There's no silver bullet, but converting commercial real estate in those high demand areas is ideal to add useful housing.

But yes, corporations sucking up residential real estate needs to be tackled just the same.

[–] jaspersgroove@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

To say nothing of the massive expense of remodeling those commercial properties to actually work as residential. When it comes to the big multistory buildings in the larger cities that need it most, the plumbing alone would be a nightmare, along with splitting up all the electric service so individual usage can be metered. And then you have to gut and rebuild the interiors to split everything up and still have proper fire code compliance.

I love the idea and I hope it gains traction but logistically and financially there are some tall hurdles to overcome to implement this properly.

[–] ThePantser@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago

Fine you won't return to the office from WFH, we'll make the office the home, checkmate employee!

[–] EatYouWell@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I hope they work on fucking the investment property market as well.

[–] thisisawayoflife@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

I've said for a while that vacancy taxes should be extremely painful. Like 10% of the land/structure value per month, increasing 2% every month after that.

They're gonna need to because 'Hey corporate land owner, were gonna make all this residentia' is gonna scare a lot of rich people. Which would be fine if we didn't run a market economy that collapsed if rich people get scared.

[–] moosepuggle@startrek.website 33 points 1 year ago

This is great! I’m glad it includes provisions for changing zoning laws, that seems to be a major reason for housing shortage in many areas.

[–] cybersandwich@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I was under the impression that commercial to residential is incredibly impractical because things like plumbing, electric, HVAC are all done very differently for resident and commercial needs.

This sounds good, but I am pretty sure it's prohibitively expensive and impossible in most cases.

Caveat: there was a huge thread on Reddit with engineers and architects talking about these types of plans. That's where I got my info, so I could be way off.

[–] Perfide@reddthat.com 10 points 1 year ago

Sure, that's a factor that needs to be considered, but another factor that needs to be considered is the value of the land itself. You can build cheap housing out in the middle of nowhere all you want, but it doesn't matter how cheap it is if there are no jobs to pay for the housing and no services to get stuff like groceries conveniently.

Converting commercial properties to residential is certainly more expensive upfront, but it creates more housing where it actually is needed AND wanted, cities and suburbs.

[–] Crashumbc@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

You pretty much have to strip the interior ripping everything out for a modern office. So no your not of base. But they do turn old warehouses and buildings into apartments and lofts in cities fairly often though.

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 5 points 1 year ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


The Biden administration announced new steps Friday to ensure access to affordable housing, launching a slew of resources to convert high-vacancy commercial buildings to residential use.

The effort is an attempt to address what the administration says is a dearth of much-needed, affordably priced, conveniently located and energy-efficient homes.

As part of Friday’s announcement, the Department of Transportation will release new guidance on more than $35 billion in lending available for transportation-oriented development projects.

According to a fact sheet shared with CNN ahead of the announcement, the administration estimates the guidance “will increase housing supply, while encouraging state and local governments to improve their zoning, land use and transit-oriented development policies.”

“The pandemic really changed the patterns of how many Americans work and live and commute, and right now, across the country, we’re seeing decades-high levels of office vacancies in many downtowns, while at the same time, many of America’s cities and towns face a steep shortage of housing, and families are struggling to afford housing and transportation,” Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg told reporters on a call previewing the announcement Thursday.

HUD will begin accepting applications for $85 million in funding through the Pathways to Removing Obstacles to Housing program, which makes money available for the development of adaptive reuse strategies and the financing of conversions.


The original article contains 568 words, the summary contains 216 words. Saved 62%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!