TheStorm said:
Civilized said:
BBW12OG said:
Civilized said:
ncsualum05 said:
hokiewolf said:
This I agree with you on, but there's got to be a way in which you can help induce ownership in lieu of providing housing. Not sure how we get there though without some sort of investment.
I could be wrong but is this not what Trump administration was trying to do with Opportunity Zones? My understanding was they were incentivizing developers to make big investments in poor areas and revitalize them. And to Steve's point the public school system does need to be revamped but since that doesn't seem likely wasn't the promotion of school choice also aligned with this to help low income families who couldn't climb the ladder?
It seems our government and many others don't want to truly do the things it takes to break this cycle but Trump along with some allies seemed like they were trying to do what they could.
OZ's incentivize developers to buy/build/develop rentals in traditionally underserved or underdeveloped areas.
The strategy has community benefits, but those benefits do not include increasing home ownership.
The strategy absolutely did promote home ownership in those OZs.
Who do you think lives there? Of course you have to take off your anti-Trump glasses to admit what he was doing for the under served communities in four years was 10x more than the left has done to promote economic advancement in 60 years.
Again, I'm not doing your research but when you make a claim like that show your work.
The entire premise of the OZs was to bring in businesses which in turn brings in people. Which in turn brings in housing. Which in turn promotes home ownership. Simple math.
It also allowed for subsidized loans for first time homeowners etc... like I said. Do the research.
President Trump had a hell of a lot of good ideas and policies for the black community that flew in the face of the oppression that the left has had on them for 60 years. Totally went against the LBJ policy of "keep em' poor, uneducated and beholden to the government you'll never lose their vote."
FACT.
alum05's comment was that OZ's "induce ownership" of homes.
They do not do that directly and there's no real evidence they do it much indirectly either. Their focus is exclusively on the investor side, not the homeowner side. They incentivize investors to shelter capital gains by investing in new construction or revitalization in undercapitalized markets. OZ's are a vehicle for investors to plow private equity back into markets that need redevelopment.
Over a period of years-to-decades that strategy may be beneficial for undercapitalized neighborhoods. I think the program has merit, it's just not what you think it is.
The irony is also that by providing really nice incentives for investors and developers to invest in certain markets, those markets will see an increase in pressure on the land, which will drive up land cost, housing costs, and make housing less affordable in those markets. That may be the lesser of two evils (lack of development/capital vs. higher housing prices) but OZ's are not a panacea for undercapitalized markets especially for lower income residents looking to transition from renting and into home ownership. That's not an indictment. No program is a panacea.
There's nothing anti-Trump about what I said. I clearly said OZ's have benefits, it's just that direct spurring of home ownership is not one of them.
All I can say is that I know you know nothing about Real Estate, because nobody "truly in the business" would ever extrapolate that Opportunity Zones won't lead to additional home ownership in those areas...
Again, the original comment that led us down this road was alum05's comment about Opportunity Zones directly benefitting underserved populations that historically have not been homeowners.
Opportunity Zones are fully intended to drive private investment capital into underdeveloped areas. They almost exclusively encourage for-rent product development in areas that haven't historically had enough new development of any product type, residential or commercial.
Any nebulous supposition about increased rates of home ownership in OZ's years down the road is both highly speculative and likely not to suss out who, exactly, would own the privately developed homes in these areas.
If history is any indication, when private redevelopment in poorer areas occurs, the original residents simply get displaced; they don't buy into the newly developed real estate in the area they used to live in.
Look no further than in and around downtown Durham and Raleigh. Lots of nice redevelopment! Who is buying the houses and condos? It ain't the original residents of downtown Durham and Raleigh. I say this as a builder that builds in and around downtown Raleigh. Displacement is a really hard problem to solve when land values are already high or on the increase. The high land basis in deals dictates that the final product be less affordable than would be ideal if we're going to tackle the area's affordable housing shortage.
The project we're currently permitting in an OZ is a townhome deal that will be for sale product, so although we're in an OZ we won't be able to achieve much or any direct benefit from the program. If we intended to develop and hold long term (and rent), that's when the OZ benefits would have become substantial. We were able to rezone the property but a negotiated rezoning condition with the active neighborhood group in the adjacent neighborhood (made up of mostly Black homeowners, most of whom have lived there since their neighborhood was built) was that we preclude the land from being developed as apartment. Why? Because they wanted buyers to literally be investing in the neighborhood rather than transitive renters. The current OZ residents essentially refused to support the project if we proposed the product type that the OZ program encourages. Therein lies the conundrum.
There's no easy turnkey answer to solve housing access and affordability. As I stated, I think OZ's are generally a good idea (the government incentivizing private business to efficiently provide a good or service rather than the government doing the same itself) but they are most likely not a magical housing panacea and they definitely won't substantively increase the rates of home ownership for their original residents.
