Podcasts about nimbyism

WOOHOO...running on fumes I power through a very rage filled show with my super amazing partner Sam.  Rage on Nimbyism, Rage on short side govermnet, Rage on poor politcal polling...so yea...Sleepy, Rummy Seth is a little angry...lol

In this episode, Ken and Russell sit down with Sandra Clarkson, President & CEO of The Calgary Drop-In Centre, one of North America's largest homeless shelters. Sandra has dedicated her entire career to the nonprofit sector, working both on the front lines and on the funding side, giving her a unique perspective on the challenges and opportunities within the sector. At The DI, Sandra lead a major strategic shift to a housing-focused model. Sandra shares insights into the challenges of implementing strategic change with long-serving staff some of whom may be resistant to new approaches: and navigating public engagement amidst NIMBYism and community pushback. Whether you're a leader in the nonprofit sector or just someone who gives a f*** about making meaningful change, this conversation offers valuable lessons on leadership, resilience, and the power of vision.Links:The Free Goods Program, by The Calgary Drop-In Centre: FreeGoodsProgram.caThe DI's Free Goods Program collects new and used donations and then distributes them to Calgarians who need them – at no cost. For donations that aren't required for programs, the DI will recycle or sell them to raise money that is better suited for other agency needs. No donation goes to waste.Subscribe & Share:If you enjoyed this episode, don't forget to subscribe and leave us a review. Share it with your colleagues who might need a fresh perspective on thriving in challenging work environments!—  Ready to take your difficult conversations to the next level?Get our book: I Need To F***ing Talk To You! | The Art of Navigating Difficult Workplace ConversationsAvailable on:AmazonOwl's Nest BooksShelf Life BooksVisit our website: ineedtof-ingtalktoyou.com

Even before tariffs and higher interest rates pressured the economy, housing starts were lagging in Ontario's bigger population centres. A look at the obstacles to construction and affordability – including higher fees, taxes and even NIMBYism – with a panel of pros who know what the holdups are. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode of Radio Free Urbanism - we are joined by YouTuber and urbanism enthusiast Alexander Rotmensz. They explore Alex's path into urbanism, the power of beautiful design, and the role of community in shaping cities. The conversation covers the impact of architectural styles on identity, debates between modern and traditional architecture, and the influence of NIMBYism. They also highlight the transformative potential of e-bikes, cultural attitudes toward mobility, and the importance of infrastructure in supporting biking and walking. The episode wraps with a look at Hampstead as a model for thoughtful urban planning.Alex: https://www.youtube.com/@alexanderrotmensz Send us a question: radiofreeurbanism@gmail.comPatreon: patreon.com/RadioFreeUrbanism Instagram: https://rb.gy/ezn9rzSully: https://www.youtube.com/@SullyvilleEthan: https://www.youtube.com/@climateandtransitNic: https://www.youtube.com/@nicthedoor

In this episode of The Missing Middle podcast, hosts Sabrina Maddeaux and Mike Moffatt discuss the impossible trinity that broke Canadian housing. They explore the implications of stagnant neighborhoods, population growth, and government policies that hinder housing affordability. The conversation delves into the complexities of urban planning, the impact of NIMBYism, and the need for realistic solutions to address the housing crisis.Chapters00:00 Introduction01:06 Gregor Robertson's rough start as Minister of Housing03:51 Increased government housing would impact home prices05:06 Understanding the Impossible Trinity that broke housing07:37 Examples of cities doing two of three10:03 Not allowed to grow up or out equals spiking prices11:21 The illusion of legalized fourplexes14:15 Ottawa's zoning reform and stupid two-story height limit17:33 Toronto's wealthiest areas are the least dense18:20 Proposed solutions for housing affordabilityResearch links:The Impossible Trinity that Broke Canadian HousingCan Homes Become Affordable Without Prices Going Down?Toronto Star fourplex pieceHow Community Consultation is Ruining DemocracyHosted by Mike Moffatt & Cara Stern & Sabrina Maddeaux Produced by Meredith Martin This podcast is funded by the Neptis Foundation and brought to you by the Smart Prosperity Institute.

Liberals have been introspecting (some may say self-flagellating) since the 2024 election, to varying degrees of convincingness and success. There's the usual genre of complaints—NIMBYism, identity politics, the crisis of masculinity, forgetting about the factory man—but the one thing liberals agree on is that they can't be blamed for following their good, apolitical science. Today's guests want you to rethink that. We're thrilled to have on Frances Lee, Professor of Politics and Public Affairs, and Stephen Macedo, Laurance S. Rockefeller Professor of Politics and the University Center for Human Values, both at Princeton University, to discuss their new book, In Covid's Wake: How Our Politics Failed Us.We open up the book by asking our guests why they wrote this book—why attack liberals' response to the COVID pandemic, and why now? Lee and Macedo argue that liberal science and policymaking early in the pandemic faced multiple epistemic failures, from undisclosed conflicts of interest to the silencing of opinions outside the mainstream. David defends the United States's COVID policy response, but Lee and Macedo press their point that value-laden judgments were made by state and local officials who avoided responsibility by claiming to follow the science. We wrap up the episode with a discussion of scientific expertise in modern democracies.This podcast is generously supported by Themis Bar Review.Referenced ReadingsGreat Barrington Declaration“Is the Coronavirus as Deadly as They Say?” by Eran Bendavid and Jay Bhattacharya“What Sparked the COVID Pandemic? Mounting Evidence Points to Raccoon Dogs” by Smriti Mallapaty“Statement in Support of the Scientists, Public Health Professionals, and Medical Professionals of China Combating COVID-19” by Charles Calisher et al.“Everyone Wore Masks During the 1918 Flu Pandemic. They Were Useless.” by Eliza McGraw“The Covid Alarmists Were Closer to the Truth Than Anyone Else” by David Wallace-WellsThe Swine Flu Affair: Decision-Making on a Slippery Disease by Richard E. Neustadt and Harvey V. Fineberg

It's easy to grouse about "NIMBYism" in situations where organized neighbors push back against "progress," but in the case of Atlanta's Amsterdam Walk, the neighbors weren't against sensible development of a nearby commercial lot; in fact, they supported zoned usage. Instead, they were steamrolled by city council (with the mayor's blessing) and Portman Holdings, who now has the go-ahead to cram 1100 apartments and 1400-plus parking spaces and retail onto a parcel of land with but one two-lane connection to an already over-trafficked four lane corridor. Oh and the prospects of rail transit for the foreseeable future were crapped on by said mayor weeks ago.Joining me to discuss the varying impacts of a development of that size ... from traffic to quality of life to even air quality ... is Charlie Kaften with A Better Amsterdam Walk.

Ryder Kessler and Catherine Vaughan, co-founders of Abundance New York, joined the show to discuss the "abundance" wave washing over the national political discourse (in part inspired by the new book Abundance by Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson), what their vision for abundance in New York is, how to achieve it, NIMBYism vs YIMBYism, and much more. Their group is a relatively new nonprofit group (501c4) creating a new political community and working to influence politics and policy to increase the supply of housing, transit, public space, and clean energy. (Ep 491)

There was a time when geographic mobility defined America — one-third of the population relocated each year, chasing better jobs and brighter futures. But today, historian and journalist Yoni Appelbaum argues in his new book, Stuck: How the Privileged and the Propertied Broke the Engine of American Opportunity, that America's once-robust engine of upward mobility is grinding to a halt. Appelbaum challenges the long-held belief that income alone dictates housing choices. Instead, he reveals how restrictive housing policies — exclusionary zoning, historical redlining, and modern NIMBYism — have dramatically limited the supply of new housing, effectively blocking the paths that families once took toward prosperity. Today, affluent neighborhoods, often proudly progressive, tout diversity while quietly building invisible walls against newcomers, turning geographic mobility into a privilege reserved mainly for the wealthy. The result is profound economic stagnation, deepening political polarization, and psychological harm — leaving millions trapped, angry, and increasingly cynical about the future. Yet despite the immense costs, estimated at $2 trillion annually, Appelbaum sees genuine hope.

Join Maurice Brown, NC REALTORS® Local Advocacy Director, as he delves into Dare County's participation in the "Our State, Our Homes" initiative, a collaborative effort with UNC Chapel Hill to address the critical issue of affordable housing. Discover how Dare County, with its unique challenges, aims to develop sustainable housing solutions that can serve as a blueprint for other communities. Featuring insights from Donna Creef, Chair of the Dare Community Housing Task Force and Government Affairs Director for the Outer Banks Association of REALTORS®, and Willo Kelly, CEO of the Outer Banks Association of REALTORS®, this episode explores the complexities of workforce housing, the impact of tourism, and the vital role of REALTORS® in fostering community collaboration. Learn about the challenges of NIMBYism, land ownership, and rising insurance costs, and how Dare County is working to create a generational approach to housing.

Its Never his fault, is it?See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this interview, V sits down with Jillian Olmsted, the Executive Director of The Inn Between, an organization that serves unsheltered individuals by giving them a place to stay, providing necessary medical attention, as well as hospice care. They deep dive into the intersection of end-of-life care, NIMBY-ism, stopping the cycle of homelessness, and how you can help. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Another swing and a miss. Contact Energy wanted to build a wind farm in Southland. They have been turned down. They are not the first and they will not be the last. Close to $300 million and hundreds of jobs are now not happening because of it. Also, the need to build 15GW of additional capacity in the next 25 years will not be happening either. So far, we have built less than 3GW. We are entering yet another winter where it is touch and go on power supply. The Minister has been busy wagging his finger at the gentailers. The climate campaigners bark on about the role of renewables, yet we continue to import record amounts of coal to cover the gap. We have cut a deal to keep Huntly going ever longer because the renewable dream is getting further and further away. Renewables may or may not be the answer to our problems at all. The simple truth about water, sun, and wind is they are beyond our control. Coal and nuclear isn't. But we seem to insist renewables are what we want to do, and yet we don't. Nimbyism will kill us. We seem happy to be shocked every year at the coal pile and we seem to be happy to be unhappy at the idea we don't have enough power to get us through a winter. The industry tells us they are investing in wind and solar. But are they? How many get turned down vs how many actually get the go ahead? Are we actually progressing, or taking a step forward and a step back? Here is the ultimate irony: there's been a lot said about this Government's fast track law. Their fast track law is actually just an extension, or an amendment, of the old fast track law, which Labour produced during Covid. Under that fast track law this wind project got turned down. So, is a “no” fast tracking? Or no tracking? If you can't get a wind farm through under fast track, are we actually into solving issues or not? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Mark and Dr. Joe delve into the complexities of the housing crisis, discussing the social and biological implications of housing, the impact of zoning laws, and the challenges posed by NIMBYism. They explore innovative solutions such as accessory dwelling units and the potential for repurposing office buildings into residential spaces. The conversation emphasizes the need to reframe perceptions of affordable housing and the importance of community involvement in addressing these issues. This episode was originally heard on Me & Dr. Joe Takeaways Housing is a fundamental need, essential for safety and community. Zoning laws significantly impact housing density and availability. NIMBYism can reflect a fear of change and loss of community identity. Innovative housing solutions can include repurposing existing structures. Affordable housing should be reframed to include essential community workers. Community engagement is crucial in addressing housing challenges. The biological response to housing changes can trigger resistance. Understanding the social domain can help mitigate housing issues. Legislation can mandate changes in housing policy for community benefit. Collaboration and open dialogue are key to finding housing solutions. Chapters 01:37 Exploring the Social and Biological Domains of Housing 10:50 The Impact of Zoning Laws on Housing Density 19:00 NIMBYism and Community Resistance to Change 25:45 Innovative Solutions for Housing Crisis 32:08 Reframing Affordable Housing Perceptions Affiliate Links: Unleashing the Power of Respect: The I-M Approach by Joseph Shrand, MD This episode is brought to you in part by SecuriTitle, a fractional paralegal service assisting with all things real estate in Massachusetts and New Hampshire.

Mark and Dr. Joe give a shout out to the amazing team at Veterans' Voice, followed by a discussion on the state of the housing market in Massachusetts and abroad, with a focus on common-sense solutions to address the affordability crisis!

What happens when a liberal thinker shifts his attention from polarization to economic abundance? Ezra Klein's new book with Derek Thompson, Abundance, argues for an agenda of increased housing, infrastructure, clean energy, and innovation. But does abundance clash with polarization—or offer a way through it? In this conversation, Ezra and Tyler discuss how the abundance agenda interacts with political polarization, whether it's is an elite-driven movement, where Ezra favors NIMBYism, the geographic distribution of US cities, an abundance-driven approach to health care, what to do about fertility decline, how the U.S. federal government might prepare for AGI, whether mass layoffs in government are justified, Ezra's recommended travel destinations, and more. Read a full transcript enhanced with helpful links, or watch the full video. Recorded March 7th, 2025. Help keep the show ad free by donating today! Other ways to connect Follow us on X and Instagram Follow Tyler on X Follow Ezra on X Sign up for our newsletter Join our Discord Email us: cowenconvos@mercatus.gmu.edu Learn more about Conversations with Tyler and other Mercatus Center podcasts here. Photo Credit: (c) Lucas Foglia

The best ideas are the ones that seem obvious—“Why didn't I think of that?” Sean Dobson saw the pile-up coming before the Great Financial Crisis (GFC) crashed the housing market. Sean and his company, Amherst, built a model to assess the true value of every home in America and bet right on what followed the GFC. Sean then had another great idea. Families who were foreclosed on were pushed out of the for-sale market but still needed a suitable place to live. So Sean pivoted to single-family rental (SFR) in the early days when there was still plenty of doubt from investors and market watchers. Today, Amherst is a diverse financial services company for some of the largest investor entities in the world; think pension funds, major endowments, foundations, and sovereign wealth funds. SFR remains a key focus. Sean shares his insights on the SFR market, housing supply and NIMBYism, housing affordability, off-site construction, and more. Here are some highlights from the latest New Home Insights podcast episode.

Is it possible for humans and large carnivores to share landscapes without conflict? What happens when predators like wolves, bears, and lynx return to areas where they've been absent for centuries? How do we balance the ecological benefits of apex predators with the real concerns of rural communities and farmers? We're trying to answer these questions with our returning guest Dr Jonny Hanson, author of ‘Living with Lynx: Sharing Landscapes with Big Cats, Wolves and Bears.'Drawing on his unique background in both farming and conservation, Jonny brings a nuanced perspective to this often polarising topic. He recounts his experiences growing up in Malawi where wildlife existed alongside urban areas, and how this shaped his understanding of human-wildlife conflict. The conversation explores the urban-rural divide in attitudes towards large carnivores, with Jonny pointing out that 'everybody loves a large carnivore when it's somewhere else' – a phenomenon he calls 'biological NIMBYism.' We also examine how compensation schemes for livestock losses often fail to deliver the expected outcomes due to bureaucracy and delays, turning farmers with positive attitudes into fierce opponents of predator reintroduction.In the episode, we also tackle difficult ethical questions about lethal control, the use of technology in managing human-wildlife conflict, and the philosophical meaning of "wildness" in our modern world. Jonny emphasises that while the ecological benefits of reintroducing large carnivores are important, we shouldn't overlook the emotional and philosophical dimensions – the sense of wonder that comes from knowing these animals exist in our landscapes, even if we never see them. We conclude the episode by attempting to predict if the reintroduction of predators to Britain and Ireland will happen in the coming decades.Buy Jonny's Book

"Family, Foundations, and the Future of Building with Crosby and Roby Simms of Simms Development"In this episode of The WB Download, host Jeff Wieland sits down with Crosby and Robert (Robi) Simms of Simms Development, a multi-family builder based in Dayton, Ohio. Jeff shares his long-standing history with the Simms family, rooted in their mutual involvement with the Home Builders Association, and introduces the brothers as the next generation leading their family's legacy.The Simms brothers discuss their journey into the construction industry, from early days on job sites to earning degrees and working outside the family business before taking the reins on January 1, 2024. They share insights into the dynamics of family business succession, the challenges of leadership, and the importance of clear communication and mutual respect.The conversation highlights the role of the Home Builders Association in shaping their careers and advocating for the industry, with Crosby sharing his experience as a board member and former HBA president. The Simms brothers also discuss their company's vision for sustainable, high-quality housing projects in the Dayton area and beyond.Jeff and the brothers tackle critical industry topics, including the impact of excessive regulation, the challenges of NIMBYism, and the importance of political involvement in driving change. They also explore innovative practices like self-guided home tours and virtual reality tools that enhance the customer experience.This episode is packed with personal stories, professional insights, and thoughtful reflections on the building industry's future. Whether you're a builder, homeowner, or industry enthusiast, this conversation offers valuable perspectives on creating homes, communities, and legacies.Tune in to hear about family, growth, and the art of building something meaningful—both in construction and in life!Learn more about Simms DevelopmentEmail Jeff your comments, questions, and topic requests, or be a guest on The WB Download.Email: WBDOWNLOAD@wielandbuilders.comSee Wieland Builders custom home gallery  www.wielandbuilders.comSee podcast behind the scenes photosFollow us on Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Houzz or Pinterest

Vancouver currently bans apartment buildings on 75% of its residential land. The city says that its current infrastructure wouldn't be able to accommodate high-density housing — and that upgrading the infrastructure to allow for apartment buildings would be way too expensive. But this is just another rationale for NIMBYism, according to Danny Oleksiuk of The Sightline Institute and Alex Hemingway of CCPA-BC. We speak with Danny Oleksiuk.

Today, Adam, Chris, Vicki and James discuss President Trump's first week back in office, including his first major speech at the World Economic Forum, Britain's trade relationship with the EU, and the government's plans to say no to NIMBYism through planning reforms. You can now listen to Newscast on a smart speaker. If you want to listen, just say "Ask BBC Sounds to play Newscast”. It works on most smart speakers. You can join our Newscast online community here: https://tinyurl.com/newscastcommunityhere Newscast brings you daily analysis of the latest political news stories from the BBC. It was presented by Adam Fleming. It was made by Jack Maclaren with Anna Harris. The technical producer was Mike Regaard. The assistant editor is Chris Gray. The editor is Sam Bonham.

In this episode of IEA Briefing, we explore why a 37-year-old paper on UK housing remains shockingly relevant today. Dr. Kristian Niemietz joins us to discuss the republishing of "No Room! No Room!" - Professor Alan Evans' 1988 analysis of Britain's housing crisis. Despite being written when multiplex cinemas were new and the Berlin Wall still stood, the paper's diagnosis of the UK's housing problems feels like it could have been written last week. The discussion dives into Evans' key insights about land prices, planning permission, and local authority incentives - issues that have only gotten worse since the 1980s. Dr. Niemietz explains how the paper identified core problems like NIMBYism (before the term even existed in British English) and the green belt's impact on housing development. They also explore how the planning system's effect on land costs leads to compromises in building quality and design. The conversation concludes by examining how the housing crisis has intensified, with current UK housing affordability ratios over 8 times median income in England and over 12 in some areas. While new factors like immigration now affect housing demand, the fundamental problems Evans identified in 1988 remain at the root of today's crisis. The discussion ends with a look at the growing YIMBY movement and whether there's hope for meaningful change in housing policy. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit insider.iea.org.uk/subscribe

On today's episode we interview Angela Brooks. As managing principal at Brooks + Scarpa, Angie is responsible for growth in the firm's housing and policy sectors, leading the firm's sustainable initiatives, and overall firm management.  Angie Brooks was the first woman ever to receive the Maybeck Award in 2021. She was also awarded the AIA Young Architects Award in 2009. Her firm won the 2022 AIA Gold Medal, 20+ National AIA Awards, the State of California and National AIA Architecture Firm of the Year Award in 2010 and the Smithsonian Cooper-Hewitt National Design Award in Architecture in 2014. Angie was also a co-founder and past President of Livable Places, Inc., a non-profit development company dedicated to building sustainable mixed-use housing in the city of Los Angeles. We talk about:  - How Angie Brooks' early career in community planning, zoning codes, and nonprofit development set the foundation for her current focus in architecture. She shares an anecdote about her bold job application strategy after grad school. - We discuss how architects can influence policy and development, highlighting Brooks + Scarpa's leadership with Livable Places, the Affordable Housing Design Leadership Institute, and LA's Small Lot Ordinance. - Angie next shares insights into affordable housing. We cover funding and budgets, energy efficiency and sustainability, design theories, user outreach, and the awards that recognize Brooks + Scarpa's outstanding work. - Later, we unpack the complexities of getting affordable housing projects approved and Angie explains the realities of NIMBYism and BANANAS (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything). - The episode wraps up with a look at the partnership of Angie Brooks and Larry Scarpa and the significance of receiving the AIA Gold Medal as a team. ____ Thank you to our sponsors: ⁠Arcol⁠ is a collaborative building design tool built for modern teams. Arcol streamlines your design process by keeping your model, data and presentations in sync enabling your team to work together seamlessly. - Website: ⁠Arcol.io⁠ - LinkedIn: ⁠https://www.linkedin.com/company/arcol-tech⁠ - Twitter/ X: ⁠https://x.com/ArcolTech Layer is the workflow platform for buildings, empowering teams to capture field data & photos, connect it to their drawings & models, and create beautiful deliverables & reports. Use Layer to build your own workflow to generate Room Data Sheets from Revit, manage your CA processes such as RFIs or Punch lists, conduct field surveys and much more. The best thing is, it's all connected directly to Revit so you'll never have to copy and paste data between windows again. - Website: https://layer.team/architectette ____ Links:  Brooks + Scarpa Website: www.brooksscarpa.com Instagram: @brooks_scarpa Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/brooksscarpa/ Denise Scott Brown Episode Mentioned: Listen Here ____ Connect with Architectette: - Website: www.architectette.com (Learn more) - Instagram: @architectette (See more) - Newsletter: www.architectette.com/newsletter (Behind the Scenes Content) - LinkedIn: The Architectette Podcast Page and/or Caitlin Brady Support Architectette: - Leave us a rating and review! - Patreon Music by ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠AlexGrohl⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ from ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Pixabay⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.

What makes someone a NIMBY? The prevailing theory suggests that people support or reject new housing in their neighborhood based on what's best for them personally. The political scientist David Broockman provides a different explanation—one based on people's beliefs about important symbols such as cities or tall buildings, rather than self-interest. Get more from your favorite Atlantic voices when you subscribe. You'll enjoy unlimited access to Pulitzer-winning journalism, from clear-eyed analysis and insight on breaking news to fascinating explorations of our world. Subscribe today at TheAtlantic.com/podsub. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Back at the start of the year, my good friend Snarky Platypus and I created some bingo cards for 2024. Two sets of 25 things that might happen. Well, we're now at the end of the year, so let's see how we went.You might want to follow along with the original blog post.https://stilgherrian.com/essay/bingo-card-2024/You might also want to listen to our half-time update from July.https://the9pmedict.com/edict/00224/In this episode we talk about sex education, high-speed trains, Nauru, Hong Kong, South Korea, television, NIMBYism, brain scans, and much more.Full podcast details and credits at:https://the9pmedict.com/edict/00240/Please consider supporting this podcast with your cash-type money:https://the9pmedict.com/tip/https://skank.com.au/subscribe/

Wait till you hear what's going in in a Neighborhood in San DiegoSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Overview In this special episode of Industry Relations, Rob and Greg welcome economist and author Professor Bryan Caplan to discuss his latest book, Build Baby Build: The Science and Ethics of Housing Regulation. The trio dives into the housing crisis, exploring how deregulation could address affordability, inequality, and other societal issues. Bryan's insights challenge conventional thinking, offering bold solutions for the future of housing.   Key Takeaways • Core Argument: Bryan argues that excessive housing regulations have driven up costs, stifled innovation, and exacerbated inequality, advocating for widespread deregulation. • The 50% Reduction Claim: Deregulation could halve housing prices nationwide by enabling construction and reducing bureaucratic hurdles. • NIMBYism and Local Politics: Local resistance to development, often driven by fear and misinformation, remains a significant barrier to solving the housing crisis. • Economic and Social Benefits: Lower housing costs could address issues like inequality, mobility, and declining birth rates, while also improving quality of life. • Role of Realtors: Real estate professionals and associations could play a pivotal role in advocating for deregulation to increase housing supply and affordability.   Watch Us on YouTube   Check out Bryan's amazing graphic novel: Build Baby Build: The Science and Ethics of Housing Regulation   Connect with Rob and Greg:  Rob's Website Greg's Website   Our Sponsors: CoreLogic Notorious VIP The Giant Steps Job Board   Production and Editing Services by Sunbound Studios

Nate and Carolyn Whitzman talk about her recent book Home Truths, Canada's housing needs, and different historical and international approaches that should inform how we build market, non-market, and supportive housing. Carolyn is a housing and social policy researcher, an expert advisor to UBC's Housing Assessment Resource Tools, and a senior housing researcher at U of T's School of Cities. She is also the author of Home Truths, Fixing Canada's Housing Crisis.How many homes do we need to build? How should we go about building them? And who should we be serving?Chapters:00:00 Introduction to Housing Crisis in Canada01:52 Understanding Housing Needs Assessments05:14 Historical Context of Housing in Canada09:09 Long-Term Solutions for Housing16:10 Market vs. Non-Market Housing22:24 Addressing NIMBYism and Zoning Reform27:39 International Examples of Non-Market Housing34:53 Financing Non-Market Housing39:56 Protecting Renters and Tenant Rights41:21 Addressing Homelessness with Compassion46:39 Conclusion and Future DirectionsTranscript:Nate:Welcome to Uncommons. I'm Nate Erskine-Smith. For those of you who are tuning in more recently, I'm the Member of Parliament for Beaches-East York. And this Uncommons podcast is a series of interviews with experts in their respective fields with colleagues of mine in parliament really focused on Canadian politics and policy in relation to that politics.And today I'm joined by Carolyn Whitzman. She is an expert in housing policy, one of the most important issues at all levels of government that need to be addressed in a comprehensive, serious way. You'll hear all politicians sort of trip over themselves with different housing plans.And the question for Carolyn is, how many homes do we need to build? How should we go about building them? And who should we be serving? And how are we going to get out of this housing crisis that this country faces and that all regions face in their own respective ways?Now, Carolyn is a housing and social policy researcher. She's an expert advisor to UBC's housing assessment resource tools. She's a senior housing researcher at U of T's School of Cities. And most importantly, having just read her book, she is the author of Home Truths, Fixing Canada's Housing Crisis.Nate:Carolyn, thanks for joining me.Caroyln:Great to join you, Nate.Nate:So you came highly recommended to me by virtue of Mark Richardson, who's a constituent and an advocate on housing and someone I, you know, anything he says on housing is to be believed.And he's, you know, he highly recommended your book, Home Truths, but he also suggested you as a podcast guest. So I really, really appreciate the time. And much of your work, you know, your main work, other than being an expert in all things housing, but a core expertise that you have is really on the needs assessment in terms of what the housing market in Canada needs in particular in different regions. And there are different needs.There are market needs, there are non-market needs, there's deeply affordable needs for people who are experiencing homelessness.And so how would you break down, you know, if you've got Sean Fraser coming to you and saying, what are the needs assessments? How would you break down the needs assessments on housing in this country?Caroyln:Well, funny you should say that because Sean's office and housing and infrastructure has come to me. So I did some work with a project called the Housing Assessment Resource Tools Project based at UBC that was funded by the CMHC that did what the CMHC used to do and unfortunately no longer does, which is look at housing need by income categories.Canada has been doing that since 1944 during World War II when a report by a relatively conservative economist named Curtis said that for low-income people, probably some form of public housing was going to be necessary to meet their needs.For middle-income people, there needed to be a lot more purpose-built rental housing, he said that in 1944. And he also said in 1944 that there needed to be some way to control rent increases and he suggested cooperative housing. And then for higher-income people, definitely scale up while located home ownership.To some extent the Canadian government listened. Between 1944 and 1960, there were about a million homes enabled through government land financing design replication that were for moderate-income starter households.In those days it was mostly one-earner households, like a man at home and a woman, sorry, a woman at home and a man at work. And the homes were two to three bedrooms between $7,000 and $8,000. So pretty remarkably that's like $80,000 to $90,000 in today's terms.Nate:That would be nice.Carolyn:Yeah, wouldn't it be nice? Once they were sold, they lost our affordability.So since then, and certainly in the 1970s and 1980s when the federal government was building, well again enabling, about one in five homes to be built by public housing, cooperative housing, other non-profit housing, that housing was affordable to what they called low- and moderate-income households, so the lowest two quintiles of household income. Home ownership was easily affordable to moderate in most places and middle-income households.So there's always been some housing needs, but there wasn't widespread homelessness. There wasn't the kinds of craziness that you see today where new rental housing isn't affordable to middle-income earners, where new homeowners are limited to the highest quintile, like the highest 20% of population.So we simply use the same kinds of categories, also the kinds of categories that are used in the U.S. and other countries. Low income, moderate income, median income, and then higher income.Unfortunately with provincial social assistance rates being what they are, we have to add a very low income, which is like 20% of median income, and really isn't enough to afford a room let alone an apartment. But yeah, that's the way we look at housing need.Nate:But then, so let's be maybe, that's at a high level for how we look, how we analyze it,and then when we look at the Canadian context today, so you talk about the Curtis Reportpost-war and on my reading of, I found your historical examples very interesting, internationalexamples interesting too, which we'll get to, but this was one of the most interestingones because here you have the Curtis Report proposing annual targets that you say is effectively the equivalent of 4 million homes over 10 years. But then they break this down into a particular categories.Then you've got, you know, two years ago, two and a bit of years ago, you had CMHC issued a report to say we effectively need 5.8 million homes by 2030. So 2.3 million in business as usual. And then you've got this 3.5 million additional homes required. And that's impossible for us to achieve based upon the current trajectory at all levels of government, frankly, but especially at the provincial level.And so when you look at the needs assessment today, so Curtis Report has 4 million over10 years, what do we need today? Is CMHC right?It's 5.8 million, although they don't break it down into these different categories, or should we be more specific to say, as you do, it's 200,000 new or renovated deeply affordable supportive homes over 10 years, and then you've got different categories for market and non-market.Carolyn:Well, I think it's important to prioritize people whose lives are literally being shortened because of lack of housing. So I think that ending homelessness should be a priority. And there's no doubt that we can't end homelessness without a new generation of low-cost housing.So I wouldn't disagree that we need 6,000 new homes. I did a report last year for the Office of the Federal Housing Advocate that argued that we need 3 million new and acquired homes for low-income people alone at rents of about $1,000 a month or less, certainly less if you're on social assistance.So the deed is pretty large. We have to recognize the fact that it's taken 30 to 50 years of inaction, particularly federal inaction, but also the Fed's downloaded to provinces, and as you say, provinces have done an extremely poor job to get there.And I think that what we see from countries that work, like France and Finland, Austria, is that they think in terms of like 30-year infrastructure categories, just like any other infrastructure. If we were to have a really viable public transit system, we'd need to start thinking in terms of what are we going to do over the next 30 years.Similarly, I think we need to look at a kind of 30-year time span when it comes to housing, and I think we need to look once again at that rule of thirds, which is a rule that's used in a lot of, in Germany and again in France and Finland, Denmark, about a third of it needs to be pretty deeply affordable low-income housing, about a third of it needs to be moderate-income rental, but with renter rights to ensure that the rents don't go up precipitously, and about a third of it needs to be for home ownership.Nate:You mentioned a 30-year window a few times there, and it strikes me that we need more honesty in our politics in that there's no quick solution to most of these challenges. That it's, you know, in your telling of the story, which I think is exactly right, this is decades in the making, and it will be decades in undoing this challenge and in addressing this as fulsome as we should.Now, that's not to say, you're right, we should prioritize people whose lives are being shortened by a lack of housing. There's some things we can do immediately to get more rapid housing built and really drive at that in a shorter window of time.But when you look at non-market housing, when you look at the market housing we need to build, no politician should stand at the microphone and say, we're going to build the homes we need without really overhauling how we do things and understanding that these homes are not going to get built tomorrow, that this is putting down track, policy track, to make sure homes get built in the next five years, in the next 10 years and beyond.Carolyn:Absolutely. And I think it's really important to start off with some aspirational goals. Like, forinstance, it was 1987 when Finland said, we're going to end homelessness, and this is how we're going to do it. France in 2000 said 20% of all housing should be non-market, in other words, public cooperative, non-profit.And in both Finland and France, there's been federal government changes as well as changes at the municipal level, etc. And those goals have remained the same through right wing and left wing governments.It does worry me, Nate, when politicians, I won't name any names, use sort of three word slogans, and that's going to somehow change things in the term of the government.Nate:I will will homes into existence by rhyming.Carolyn:So, you know, it takes building up systems, including good information systems to monitor and track how well we're doing and course correct. And that's something kind of basic that's been missing from federal policy as well.There's one report that says there's 655,000 non-market homes. Another report two years later says that there's 980,000 non-market homes and those weren't built in two years. So, you know, what is our current housing stock? How are our policies working to create certain kinds of housing, housing for people with disabilities or housing for seniors?Student housing need wasn't even included in the last few censuses. So, we don't really know how many students need housing at what cost and where. These are all examples of things that would be in a real national housing strategy.Nate:That seems to me like the basics, right? Like you measure why I want to start theconversation with a needs assessment, because if you don't start with that, then you're not working in a serious direction to any end goal.But I was also struck by your book just and you mentioned a couple of international examples and I'll say again, I want to get there, but I want to start the historical examples because part of us we live in this Overton window and we've had the federal government, not this federal government, but previous federal governments walk away from their responsibilities on housing.As you say, the story is a story of downloading responsibilities. There's been some uploading of responsibilities back through the last two national housing strategies as far as it goes, but we could talk about whether there ought to be more of that even and I think there probably should be more fiscal firepower when I look at the international examples and what's spent in France and Germany and other countries.But I was also struck by the historical ability to build in this country. And this is one thing that jumped out, but I'd also be curious what when you were writing this book, like what really jumped out is you as, so we're building fewer homes now than we were in the mid 1970s when the population was half what it is now. I found that absolutely shocking.I also found it shocking if new home construction had stayed at 1970s levels, we'd have an additional 6 to 7 million homes, meaning we'd be where we should be.Carolyn:Yeah, yeah. So what happened? And I think a couple of things happened. One is, and this happened in a couple of countries. It happened in Sweden too.Sweden said, we'll build a million homes in a country of 8 million, which is pretty impressive. And they did. And then they had a slight surplus of homes. They had some vacancies.And instead of going, yay, vacancies, tenants have a choice. They went, oh my God, vacancies,what are we doing? There was also a change of government, of course. So they course corrected.Part of it is that a good housing system includes about 4 to 8% vacancies, just because people move,there's vacancies in between people moving. You want people to have a choice. We know that vacancies help bring rents down in sort of...Nate:And standards up, right?Carolyn:And standards up using classic supply and demand. So we want to see some vacancies. We don't want to have a zero vacancy system. That's number one.Number two is just this increasing belief in the late 1970s and early 1980s. And it came from both the right and the left to distrust government.I think Robert Moses, the chief planner of New York City for decades has a lot to answer for because people started looking at this big, heavy-handed planning and said, we don't want anything of it.And so activists in central cities said, we don't want our heritage knocked down, which I completely understand, but then created such restrictive zoning that only very rich households can live in the majority of well-located neighborhoods in Toronto, for instance.But from the right as well, there was this belief that the market can solve all problems, including the problem of housing for low-income people. And there's never been any proof that that particular contention is true. Whereas there's plenty of evidence that the needs of low-cost, low-income people can only be met through a kind of social perspective.Just like if you said, hey, you have to pay the real costs of healthcare. Well, 20% of you won't be able to, and that's too bad for you. Or everyone needs to pay the real cost of primary education. Well, sorry, many of you will have to remain illiterate.So housing is a basic need, a basic social determinant of health, just as education and healthcare is. And although housing is unlike healthcare and education in that the majority of it is provided by the private sector, just like food, there does need to be some consideration for the fact that everybody needs housing, just like they need healthcare and education and food.Nate:There's a lot there. And really, I think I was on the road a lot last year for an ultimately unsuccessful bid on the provincial leadership side. But I talked about housing a lot because it was, I think it's got to be the overriding focus for all levels of government, but especially provincial governments as it relates to zoning reform.And the line I would use, and I believe in this, I think this is how to articulate it at a high level that governments need to get out of the way on the market side so homes can be built and governments have to get back in the game in a serious way on getting social housing built and public housing built. And at a high level, those are the two objectives.Now, let's start with, there's a lot in what you said on both fronts, but let's start with market housing.You've got a tragic situation where you've got a doubling of home prices, but wages have only increased by 7% over the last five, six years. You've set out a target on this front in your own analysis to say we need 2 million homes with affordable monthly rents.So that's our goal. And to get there, part of this is ending exclusionary zoning. And then every level of government has role to play.The federal government has the Housing Accelerator Fund, which is one of the programs I quite like, although I know it's subject to maybe getting cut under the next government.Carolyn:I do too. I just wish that there was the same kind of conditional funding with provinces. I mean, it seems like the federal government has gone, yeah, let's bully some municipalities and I have no problem with that, or let's provide targets to municipalities.Nate:I'm okay with the firm sort of like carrots and sticks. And in this case, yeah, it's a combination of the two.Carolyn:It is.Nate:And we should be firm with municipalities that don't do their jobs on any restrictive zoning. But when a province can end it with the stroke of a pen across the board, surely we should be even more forceful with provincial governments.Carolyn:Well, let me give the example of supportive housing. So the federal government announcedthe Rapid Housing Initiative, which in many ways has been the most successful national housing strategy program, although it came along as a COVID era additional.Nate:It's the only program I really like talking about, other than the half, the Housing Accelerator Fund, because I can see real results. I can see Toronto, for example, working to change their zoning rules and other municipalities across the province and country, frankly.The Rapid Housing is the only other piece. And there was a housing accelerator or a housing innovation fund, affordable housing innovation fund that was sort of a precursor to it. That's the only program I really point to to show like that's results oriented. There are real outcomes I can point to of homes that have been built where there are people that have moved out of the shelter system that are living in these homes. And, you know, people can debate it, but I see it as a broad success.Carolyn:I'm in furious agreement. It met and exceeded targets. The only problem was that in many cases it was supportive housing or housing with supports. And those supports can't be provided by the federal government.Nate:I know.Carolyn:It's worth of the provincial responsibility. And I think there was a little bit of wishful thinking that the provinces would come along, but in many cases, and Ontario is one of them, they just didn't come along.So what would it be like if the federal government said, okay, as part of our health transfer dollars, we're going to transfer money directly into the health and social support services that we know are necessary in order to keep people with mental and physical health needs housed and we'll just claw it out of the health transfer payment.I think that would be fair. It's still going to the people who need it the most through municipalities, but it would have the impact of showing that these targets are serious and also hopefully pointing provinces towards genuine plans to end homelessness. And the province has so many levers that could help prevent and end homelessness.It has landlord-tenant relations and eviction protection. It has health and social services, which are an essential part of housing for people with disabilities, older people, et cetera. So the province can't wash its hands of the kind of housing policy that the federal government and municipalities are talking about.They are the laggard in terms of the three levels of government, as far as I'm concerned.Nate:Do you think, so I have an example locally of 60 units built modular housing. It was through the Affordable Housing Innovation Fund, that's how I even know it exists, but the precursor to sort of rapid housing.And I think of it as a success. It was some local opposition. It was challenging to get through some of those conversations. There's probably a bit more legwork that could have been done to make sure that it's all single units and it could have been probably, there are demographics to serve that drive this and I do understand that, but I do think in some of these cases, some of the literature I've read suggests that having some mix of single and family units can be helpful in the longer term.I've read some stuff from John Sewell and others. So I don't know, maybe some of that could have been part of the mix in a way to respond to local concerns, but overall it's been a success.And yet the city puts up the parking lot, the feds bring in the capital dollars, it gets built and the missing partner of the table on the wraparound ongoing supports is the province of Ontario.So we fill this locally with a particular project, but it happens everywhere. And you're right. I do think we need to be more forceful on the provincial side. So then what does that look to you?You did in your book suggest a couple of different things. You have a different idea that you propose there, but one piece is around requiring infrastructure dollars. So you have more, you're pushing provinces to add more density in transit oriented areas and you tie federal infrastructure dollars.The half is obviously an example of using some federal dollars to try and change dynamics. We've got now a version of this where there's billions of dollars in loans available to provinces that opt into sort of the BC model, BC bills and doing things in a better way.If you're advising the housing minister on this front, how much more forceful can we be at the federal level around addressing NIMBYism, do you think?Caroyln:Well, I think the big cure to NIMBYism is a lot more front-end work when it comes to community planning.There's some really good work that's been done by a group called Renovate the Public Hearing, NBC. It's a black-clad group out of Simon Fraser and they use citizen juries, for instance, which are randomly chosen individuals in a community. Actually, Mark was part of one many years ago in Toronto out by Jennifer Keesmaat and they make kind of high-level decisions around planning.Usually people, just everyday people off the street, given all the facts and all the evidence, will make pretty good decisions. But I don't think that residents should be asked to make decisions about every single development. I think there needs to be a lot more enabling environment quite radically, I suppose.I think that four stories as of right with unlimited units would allow a whole new generation of small apartment buildings.Nate:That seems the minimum, by the way, so this is something that, you know, the half pushes and other changes have been proposed by other municipal leaders are on four stories as of right. Sorry, four units.Carolyn:It's not four units, it's four stories.Nate:Okay, so four stories would be more radical, but it's certainly less radical though than, the example I love from your book was Japan, which has incredibly permissive zoning rules that is rightly focused their zoning permissions on nuisances and real nuisances that affect quality of life, and not just they keep certain people out of this community and keep my property values up.Carolyn:And that's about mix as well. That's about having small grocery stores next to homes, next to trial care centers, next to high schools or whatever.So I think a lot of the land use zoning is infamously two-dimensional. Like it says, this is what the land use will bein this particular area. And that's really problematic in terms of the kind of walkable communities that many of us are talking about as well as transit-oriented communities.Of course,the minimum heights would need to be greater near transit stations and even bus stops, I'd argue, but certainly that sort of baseline that would allow, they'd allow multiplexes, they'd allow people to build granny flats and give the main house to one of their kids or two of their kids if the kids subdivided or whatever.I think that that's sort of the retail change that needs to happen. There's sort of the wholesale change, which are big new developments on government land or near transit stations, et cetera.But the sort of retail change is really important. A lot of neighborhoods in Toronto, and I know you live in Toronto, have lower densities than they did 30 years ago. They have smaller households, more single-person households, et cetera. So the built form needs to, you know, we need to have a lot more flexible housing to make a long story short.And even if in the best case scenario, non-market housing was 20% of all housing, 80% would still be provided by the private sector. It's really hard for homeowners to say, hey, I'm going to subdivide into three units.The municipal government makes it difficult through approvals and development taxes. Finance providers say, what's your experience as a developer? You know, so I think we need a far more enabling environment to make the kind of changes we need.Nate:Well, my last comment I would say on the market side is, and density, and in general, and encouraging density. It does strike me, one other tool that the feds could potentially use is when we, one thing is, you know, okay, tying infrastructure dollars to density around transit. That seems like no brainer stuff.But there's also when the mayor of Norfolk County comes to me and says, we need real investments in wastewater. Well, great. Federal investments on the infrastructure side tied to some action on density. And I think different municipalities will have different needs.And similarly, some municipalities may balk to go, well, if we add so much density, well, how do we manage the healthcare capacity in these areas, the school capacity in these areas, the childcare capacity in these areas.And so there are infrastructure related needs to adding density and the feds and the province are in a much better position to write those large checks to make that happen.Anyway, so I think there's, you know, maybe housing accelerator fund, but just pushed to, you know, the next level even. So it's not just dollars related housing, but it's dollars related infrastructure more broadly.Okay, but on the, you mentioned non-market and I do want to spend a good amount of time on that, because I actually think that is the missing piece. We can talk about market housing forever, but you rightly know in your book that, you know, market housing is not going to get us out of the crisis that we're in, especially for so many people who can never imagine owning a home right now, given where home prices are at and how much they've run away from wages.And I want you to talk a little bit about, for those who maybe don't get through, who don't get to your book, the examples, you mentioned France, you mentioned, there's a range of different examples in your book though, focus on non-market housing. We used to do this in Canada in a more serious way.What are some of the things we should be doing that other countries do in this space? What would be your top three, four or five hit lists of, you know, France does this and Denmark does this, and if Canada really wanted to re-energize, writing big checks is one of it, but if Canada really wanted to re-energize the space, what's your hit list?Carolyn:Well, one of them is something I'm working on today, actually, in response to a request from the federal government, which is, what's the capacity of developers across Canada to create large-scale developments on government land? So, there are some really exciting large-scale developments.In Vancouver alone, there's SINOC, which is a Squamish-led development that's going to produce 6,000 apartments, very well located next to Burrard Bridge, as well as Jericho Lands, which again is Canada Lands Company plus three First Nations. Those are the kinds of large-scale development that can really show a way forward.And if you look at St. Lawrence neighborhood, people used to come from all over the world to look at St. Lawrence neighborhood. What an amazing development that was, 50 years old now, and 4,000 homes, a third each, public housing, cooperative housing, condos, again the rule of thirds.It was considered such a radical idea to have schools at the bottom and grocery stores at the bottom and a church and a pub and a restaurant and everything at the bottom, but it really works knit along that linear park. It's still a really lovely neighborhood, and it was a game-changer.At that time, talking about families living in eight-story buildings was considered, you know, crazy radical stuff, but it worked. So, we need about 100 more St. Lawrence neighborhoods, and then we need a lot of small-scale enablers such as, as I say, four-story buildings that I was recently on the housing industry task force, and there's so many innovative prefabricated housing producers, and they said all we need is a certain level of guaranteed demand.We'll build the factories, we'll hire the people, and of course you get a much more diverse labor force working for factories than you might in construction industries.The construction industry right now is an aging population with a high level of retirements expected, so we need prefab housing.Prefab housing can be awesome. What would it be like if the federal government did a guaranteed order of, I don't know, 200,000 homes a year, most ambitiously. Okay, let's call it 50,000, be a little bit less ambitious.We know already that modular student housing works in Quebec. UTILE builds affordable student homes really cheaply using modular. We know that the Rapid Housing Initiative was on the back of a kind of four-story special with the ground floor being community services and the social workers, and three stories of housing above it.So, we have those kinds of models that will work nationally, and if you did that sort of a pre-order, you could really build up Canada's prefab industry in a really exciting way. It's really important for the north where construction seasons are slow.You know, it ticks so many boxes.Nate:Yeah, it really does. I like that idea a lot.Well, and one thing that struck me, I mentioned Denmark. One thing that struck me was, but before we get to Denmark, actually the stat from France struck me, and people should know, so France produces 110,000 non-market homes a year, more in one year than the total number of non-market homes created in Canada over the last 24 years.Like, that blew my brain. Like, I just like, what are we even doing here? If France is doing that and we're doing this, like, whoa, what are we even doing here?Carolyn:It's really important to emphasize how beautiful many of those homes are. I mean, I don't know whether you've been to Paris recently, but I was in Paris.Nate:Not recently, no. Paris. I got kids. It's hard to travel these days.Carolyn:Oh, but you know, you can just offer them a chocolate croissant.Anyhow, so Cazane de Relay, which is on a former military barracks, and it is, it's got student housing, it's got family housing, but it's knitted around in the former, like, Chondemar, the former military parade ground, this beautiful park that has cafes in it.And it's in a very ritzy part of Paris near a subway line, and people love it, because it's an adaptive reuse of space with a beautiful park in the middle of it. Again, you can make beautiful, socially inclined, environmentally sound architecture, and it's nothing to be ashamed of.Nate:Yeah, of course, yeah.Carolyn:For a long time, I mean, people think of the original version of Regent Park, and they think about these very dire projects.But, you know, think about St. Lawrence neighborhood. Think about in Ottawa, Beaver Barracks, which again, has this beautiful set of community gardens in the middle of it, and district heating, and all kinds of cool stuff. We can make beautiful things.Nate:I mentioned France just because it's such a frustrating comparison that they are building so much more. But Denmark, I found an interesting example because it's a practical sort of solution-oriented example.It's not just, this, France is doing way more than Canada, sorry, Canada. But Denmark's National Building Fund provides 45-year mortgages, 30 years to pay off the building costs, and then 15 years to fund the next new project.Other countries have just, if you compare CMHC financing for non-market versus what these other countries are doing, I mean, other countries are just way lower cost and longer-term financing. And that seems like, I don't know, it seems like low-hanging fruit to me. I don't know how much pushback there is from CMHC, but if we can't do that, then we're not going to solve this problem at all.Carolyn:Well, that's the secret sauce. That was the secret sauce in the 1970s and 1980s when up to 20% of new homes were non-market. It was 40-year mortgages at 2% at the time, when crime was 6%.So it is a challenge, or let's put it this way, it's not CMHC as much as it is the finance ministers who tend not to love that.But you can get to the point, it's not just Denmark, it's Austria and France as well, where you have a revolving loan fund and it refreshes itself.And that goes back to our earlier conversation of the need for thinking long-term. Infrastructure financing is always long-term and the payback from infrastructure financing is always long-term.Nate:I want to get to a conversation, sort of conclude with addressing homelessness, but before we get there, just on the protecting renters. We've promised a bill of rights for tenants and that's obviously in some ways tough because the federal jurisdiction is going to require, again, sort of a carrot-stick approach, although interesting again to note the historical example of national rent control, I think it was in the 1940s, but regardless.Carolyn:1940s and 1941 and 1975.Okay, so even more recent than that. You know Pierre, said in 1975, thou shalt have rent control and all the provinces said, okay.Nate:Interesting. And even where we have some rent control, obviously Ontario is a classic example where you've got rent control while the unit is lived in and then there's such a massive disincentive to keep the unit up or to respond to tenant concerns because, oh, if the tenant leaves, shrug my shoulders, I actually make more money because I can now, the rent control disappears.Carolyn:It's a huge incentive for evictions and it was brought in, that exemption vacancy control was brought in by conservative government.Nate:Does not surprise me on that front. So on the protecting renters front, there's a window here at least with the tenants bill of rights, although maybe a short life left in this parliament, but there is a window there.I think there's probably a window to collaborate with the NDP on something like that or the Bloc on something like that to really get something done. So there's at least some space to maybe fulfill on the implementation side.Beyond that space or maybe even in that space, what would you want to see in Canada on renter protections?Carolyn:I'm doing some work right now with an investor group called SHARE, S-H-A-R-E, that is on ESG guidelines for investors in housing. And I think it's really important, we now have environmental guidelines for investment in housing, but we don't yet have social guidelines on investment.And I sometimes think that soft-suasion is as important as we've been talking about the bully function of federal government. I think it is really that I've seen ESG guidelines have a huge impact on investors.I think that unions, to give one specific example, are uncomfortable with the fact that several of their pension funds invest in and actually have entirely owned REITs who evict current and former union members. I think that's an uncomfortable place to be.So I think that investor guidelines are really important and they would be a world first if they were developed in Canada. So that's kind of exciting.What else is needed in terms of tenant rights? Look, countries in Europe, including countries that are majority renter and richer than Canada, Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Denmark, they tend to have longer leases and tend to have far harder roads towards eviction.So it's partly, absolutely rent, some level of rent negotiation. What Denmark does, one of the things I love about Denmark, is it has, it funds tenant unions and the tenant unions negotiate sort of the landlord.Nate:Better bargaining power.Carolyn:It's a bargaining situation and there is an emphasis on fair cost-based rent increases each year, which seems like a fair and transparent process, but also longer leases is part of the trick. I think that you want to create a situation where you can live for a long time as a renter, invest in other forms of requirement savings other than homes.But right now, definitely being a renter is a second class situation and that leads a lot of people to get into really, really scary debt in order to become homeowners. And that's not necessarily a good situation as well, or living very far away from your work or having to move away from where your family is.Nate:Well, it speaks to, and maybe we should have started here instead of finishing here, but it speaks to what are the twin goals in some ways, like what is a home and to deliver for someone that sense of home and shelter and safety.You have a rundown of different things that have to be considered here. But I think what I would want from a policy lens is at a minimum, you want sure there's some semblance of affordability, and you want to make sure that there's security of tenure, that you want to make sure that people, whether they're a tenant, tenants shouldn't be at such a disadvantage here that they don't have security of tenure, that there isn't that stability in their lives and they can't invest in their property in the same way. They can't know that they're going to be near this school and near this workplace, as you say. That is such an essential part of a home that goes, I think, under discussed in our politics in a really big way.I also, just to finish with on a rent supplement side, you don't have to comment on it because I don't want to get to homelessness in the sort of three minutes you got left, but this stuck out to me too.So France, Germany, and Denmark all spend 0.7% of their GDP on just rent supplements. Canada spends less on all housing related expenditures combined. Anyway, your book broke my brain in a number of different ways.Okay, so to finish with homelessness and addressing homelessness, because you've talked about rapid housing, you've talked about industrial, if the government of Canada committed to 50,000 modular units a year or something like that, we know where we could direct them at a minimum, which is to replace encampments with homes.And we now have Premier in Ontario, at least, who's talking about, he hasn't done it yet, but talking about, you know, send me a letter of mayors calling for the use of the notwithstanding clause as if you should replace encampments using the notwithstanding clause instead of just building homes.It's like in support of housing. And so on the homelessness front, this is a problem that needs to be resolved in a compassionate, evidence-based way. And that is the hope. And I hope it doesn't get, it's being weaponized in our politics in a big way. And I hope we can push back against that.And so to do that, but to do that successfully, are we looking at just a broad expansion of the rapid housing program, committing to that industrial building, the modular units, and then hopefully really aggressively pushing the provinces, as you say, on the supportive housing front, knowing that, you know, a housing first approach is the answer?Carolyn:That would help a lot. I mean, Canada, under the Harper government, funded the largest international experiment in housing first, which is simply providing homeless people with a permanent home with the supports that they need. And it worked.You know, it was 3000 people. The rates of people losing their homes was very low. The rates of people staying home and having better health and economic outcomes was huge.But you can't have housing first without having the housing comma first. That's what the films say. So that's what we need. We need a whole new generation of low-cost housing and many cases with supports that people need because such a high number of people who are homeless have various forms of disability.And if they don't have severe physical and mental health issues before they become homeless, they sure get them very quickly once they become homeless. So what we need to do, it's so self-evident when it comes to housing, when it comes to homelessness.And it doesn't just make moral sense. It makes economic sense.Nate:That's the part that bothers me, by the way. It's so frustrating in our politics.I speak to people like the, you know, small business owners who go, this is affecting my ability to earn an income. People are not coming to downtown London in Ontario as much as they were before because we have a homelessness challenge.You've got parks that parents go, that park is supposed to be so my kid can play in that green space, not for an encampment. And you kind of pull your hair out and go, why can't we just build supportive homes?Carolyn:Hospital emergency rooms aren't made to, you know, it's not of efficient use of hospital emergency rooms to get 200 visits a year.Nate:Exactly.Carolyn:You know, so it makes so much sense. I don't understand why at some basic level, why every province doesn't have a plan to end homelessness. It's a shame and it's also dumb.I mean, it's dumb on so many levels. So yeah, I mean, you know, I agree with you. I was reading Jane Philpott's book on Health For All, and I was going, yeah, the answers are pretty darn simple when it comes to health. Why don't we just do it?You know, and to me, the answers are pretty simple when it comes to housing. Why don't we just do it? You know, so I guess this book's Home Truths is intended to say to people, I know it looks really complex and it is, but the answers aren't that hard to figure out. It's not rocket science.Nate:Yeah. My takeaway was very much that, and this is the last data point that I throw at listeners from your book, but this one really stuck out. You talk about housing first approach in Finland and how the Finnish consider it.Over a period from 1985 to 2016, they went from over 2,100 shelter beds to 52. And then how do they do that?Well, they're cutting emergency shelter beds.How? Because they're increasing supportive housing from 127 to over 1,300. And they're replacing what is a reactive emergency response, which is a more expensive response, frankly.They're replacing that with a long-term housing first approach through supportive housing and non-market housing. And again, it seems obvious.The challenge, of course, is we should have started doing this a decade ago, two decades ago yesterday. And I'm not dismissive of the rapid housing program. I'm not dismissive of the housing accelerator fund. I'm not dismissive of the loans and the grants that are going towards and the new co-op fund. I don't want to be dismissive of all that. We're going in the right direction.It does seem, though, that the scale of the direction we're heading in the right direction, the scale is just not where it needs to be to get us to where we need to get in 30 years.Carolyn:Yep. We've done some really good pilot programs, and now it's time to scale it up and have some real targets. And it's been a pleasure talking policy wonk stuff with you, Nate.Nate:Well, that's what this is for. And I do appreciate the book. I'm glad Mark suggested that you'd be a guest because it prompted me to read your book. And I'm a much better advocate on housing for having done so.Carolyn:Well, thank you, Mark.Nate:I say that regularly on the housing file. Anyway, thanks, Carolyn, for your time.Carolyn:Thank you, Nate. Take care. Bye-bye.Nate:Thanks for joining me on this episode of Uncommons. I hope you found, yes, it was adeeper dive in policy, but I hope you found some of those stats interesting. They were eye-popping to me, frankly.I do think we have a certain Overton window in our politics sometimes, including on housing, and understanding historical examples, understanding what happens in other countries can be incredibly informative in helping to shift that window and delivering greater ambition, especially on such an important file.With that, if you have suggestions for guests or future topics, you can reach me at info at beynate.ca. You can reach me online, of course, on an increasingly variety of platforms. I'm on Bluesky now, but you can reach me at beynate on all those channels. And otherwise, otherwise, until next time. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.uncommons.ca

In this episode, real estate agents and investors Erin Spradlin and James Carlson explore key trends in real estate investment and housing policy following the 2024 election. They begin by discussing post-election migration, examining where Americans are moving after the 2024 election. Using data from The New York Times and Redfin, they reveal a growing trend of individuals relocating based on political alignment, with states gaining population post-election often aligning with voters' political preferences. The hosts highlight that economic factors, such as taxes, also play a role in these moves, especially as younger and less wealthy individuals seek affordability. Shifting to California's Proposition 33, Erin and James dissect why voters rejected a measure that would have expanded rent control to newer homes. They discuss the pros and cons of rent control for landlords, noting that while such policies aim to address housing affordability, they often discourage housing development and harm small property owners. The hosts delve into understanding rent stabilization policies and the unintended consequences of capping rents, such as reduced profitability for landlords and a worsening housing shortage. They also address the broader housing crisis, citing a shortage of 4 to 7 million homes in the U.S. caused by restrictive zoning laws, labor shortages, and NIMBYism. The episode concludes with actionable insights for listeners on how to start investing in real estate, emphasizing the importance of understanding local policies, affordability trends, and political factors that influence the market. For more information visit: https://www.erinandjamesrealestate.com/

Aly's back, and with some recent perspective on third places. Particularly, their significance in expanding our sense of home beyond four walls. We talk devised theatre, childhood restaurants, the power of nostalgia, and how to bring up urbanism at thanksgiving dinner. We discuss: 00:00 Aly's back. 02:54 Urbanism and nostalgia. 05:20 On third places. 13:35 Defining routine via walking routes. 21:45 The shared value of third places. 29:09 Final thoughts.

In this week's episode, host Daniel Raimi talks with Stephen Jarvis, an assistant professor at the London School of Economics, about local opposition—often called “NIMBYism,” or Not In My Backyard—to renewable energy projects in the United Kingdom and the cost this opposition adds to the clean energy transition. Jarvis discusses the permitting process for renewable energy projects in the United Kingdom, how the local impacts of these projects often outweigh broader societal benefits in the permitting process, and potential solutions to better align local and societal interests for a more efficient and equitable clean energy transition. References and recommendations: “The Economic Costs of NIMBYism: Evidence from Renewable Energy Projects” by Stephen Jarvis, https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/732801 “Wilding” by Isabella Tree; https://www.panmacmillan.com/authors/isabella-tree/wilding/9781509805105 “The Overstory” by Richard Powers; https://www.richardpowers.net/the-overstory/ “Playground” by Richard Powers; https://www.richardpowers.net/playground/ “Extraction/Abstraction” by Edward Burtynski; https://www.edwardburtynsky.com/bookstore-inventory/extraction-abstraction-2024

Community opposition can thwart the most desirable—and needed—development projects. Connecticut developer Jerry Davis and CBRE's Jessica Lall offer tips and strategies for marshalling community support for worthwhile projects and overcoming the instinct to “just say no” to new development.1. Engaging the community early and maintaining open lines of communication are crucial for real estate developers to overcome community objections. By involving local stakeholders in the planning process and addressing their concerns, developers can build trust, gain allies and smooth the path for project approval.2. Local governments that adapt regulations to allow for a variety of housing types can ease the "missing middle" problem—affordable housing that falls between single-family homes and large multifamily properties.3. The affordable housing shortage can provide an impetus for regulatory changes and innovative solutions.4. Successful pilot projects can demonstrate how local communities can benefit from new development.5. Collaboration between government and the private sector can advance worthwhile projects that can be derailed by well-intention community opposition.

If NIMBY is the classist rejection of affordable housing ("Not in my back yard”), then YIMBY is sold as the progressive counter to it: “Yes, in my back yard; because I believe affordable housing should be widely available, even in my own neighborhood.” But of course, housing development has nothing to do with the needs of the poor or the working class. It has nothing to do with the public purpose. Steve's guest, political economist David Fields, explains: “YIMBY is yes to housing in my backyard, but housing for developers to extract profit from land value. So build as much as possible within a given area and, in the end, extract as much as possible through rent extraction and land value appreciation. It's not, in my view, yes to actual affordable housing in my backyard to house working class folks. No, it's yes to luxury skyscrapers, luxury this, luxury that. Build as cheaply as possible for vested interests to maximize gain.” YIMBY's want us to believe that sheer quantity will bring prices down, because that's how the market works. Those who object are accused of NIMBYism. In addition, “They're economically illiterate, they're economically stupid, they don't know, they don't pay attention, and they're not letting the magic do its magic. Which, anybody who knows a modicum of economics and knows that supply and demand is institutionally configurated - not natural - should be flabbergasted and say, how did this get to be so popular, so celebrated? Well, there are vested interests involved.” The episode explores the misleading narratives of YIMBYism and compares the market-driven approach to housing to trickle-down economics, emphasizing the constructed scarcity and profit motives behind urban planning. David points out the misuse of economic models like the Marshallian Cross, highlighting flaws in the market logic often used to justify YIMBY policies. David and Steve talk about the broader neoliberal agenda of privatization and deregulation, and its stranglehold on government policies. Awareness and organization are needed to combat systemic class inequality in housing and beyond. David Fields is from a critical realist and genetic structuralist ontology and epistemology. His work centers on the intricacies concerning the interactions of foreign exchanges and capital flows, with economic growth, fiscal and monetary policy and distribution, whereby critical attention is paid to the notion of endogenous money. He also delves into the political economy of regional development to study patterns with respect to the nature of housing, social stratification, and community planning. @ProfDavidFields on Twitter

Not in my backyard (NIMBY) is a syndrome that has stymied the supply of homes, electricity, roads and other projects in the United States and abroad. Patrick Sleven's insights on NIMBYism come from his experience as mayor of Safety Harbor, a city on the west shore of Tampa Bay in Florida. He discusses ways to overcome NIMBYism with Host Llewellyn King and Co-host Adam Clayton Powell III.

Eli Dourado is on a mission to end the Great Stagnation, that half-century period of economic and technological disappointment that began in the 1970s (what I refer to in my 2023 book, The Conservative Futurist, as the Great Downshift). If we want to turn the page on this chapter of slow progress and deserved skepticism, we're going to have to accept some creative destruction.Dourado believes that the courage to embrace major change is key to meeting our potential. Today on Faster, Please! — The Podcast, I talk with Dourado about the future of the US job market and energy production in a world of AI.Dourado is chief economist at the Abundance Institute, and author of his own Substack newsletter.In This Episode* The dawn of a productivity boom? (1:26)* Growing pains of job market disruption (7:26)* The politics of productivity growth (15:20)* The future of clean energy (23:35)* The road to a breakthrough (30:25)* Reforming NEPA (35:19)* The state of pro-abundance (37:08)Below is a lightly edited transcript of our conversationThe dawn of a productivity boom? (1:26)Pethokoukis:  Eli, welcome to the podcast.Dourado: Thanks for having me on, Jim.I would like to think that what we are experiencing here in the 2020s is the beginnings of an extended productivity boom. We have some good economic data over the past year and a half. I know this is something that you care about, as I do . . . What's your best guess?I think the seeds of a boom are there. There's plenty of low-hanging fruit, but I'd say the last few quarters have not been that great for TFP growth, which is what I followed most closely. So we actually peaked in TFP in the US in Q4, 2021.Now what is that, what is TFP?Total factor productivity. So that's like if you look at inputs and how they translate into outputs.Capital, labor . . .Capital and labor, adjusting for quality, ideally. We've gotten less output for the amount of inputs in the last quarter than we did at the end of 2021. So slight negative growth over the last three years or so, but I think that you're right that there is room for optimism. Self-driving cars are coming. AI has immense potential.My worry with AI is other sociopolitical limits in the economy will hold us back, and you kind of see the news breaking today as we're recording this, is there's a strike at the ports on east coast, and what's at issue there is are we allowed to automate those jobs? Are the owners of the ports allowed to automate those jobs? And if the answer ends up being “no,” then you can say goodbye to productivity gains there. And so I really think the technology is there to do a lot more to kick off a productivity boom, but it's the sociopolitical factors that are slowing us down.And I definitely want to talk about those sociopolitical factors, and the port strike is hopefully not a harbinger. But before I leave this topic, I suppose the super bullish case for productivity is that AI will be so transformative, and so transformative throughout the economy, both automating some things, helping us do other things more efficiently, and creating brand new high-productivity things for us to do that we will have maybe an extended 1990s, maybe more, I might hope?What is your bullish case, and does that bullish case require what they call artificial general intelligence, or human-level, or human-level plus intelligence? Is that key? Because obviously some people are talking about that.Can we have an important productivity boom from AI without actually reaching that kind of science-fictional technology?I don't actually think that you need one-to-one replacement for humans, but you do need to get humans out of the loop in many, many more places. So if you think about the Baumol effect, the idea here is if there are parts of the economy that are unevenly growing in productivity, then that means that the parts of the economy where there is slow productivity growth, perhaps because you have human labor still being the bottleneck, those parts are going to end up being massive shares of the economy. They're going to be the healthcares, the educations, the parts of the economy where we have lots of inflation and increased costs. So the real boom here, to me, is can you replace as many humans as possible? Over the short run, you want to destroy jobs so that you can create a booming economy in which the jobs are still available, but living standards are much higher.If you think about these big chunks of GDP like health, housing, energy, transportation, that's what you need to revolutionize, and so I can think of lots of ways in health that we could use AI to increase productivity. And I also have very little doubt that even current levels of AI could massively increase productivity in health. I think the big question is whether we will be allowed to do it.So you don't need AGI that is as good as a human in every single thing that a human might do to limit the number of humans that are involved in providing healthcare. Housing, I think there's construction robots that maybe could do it, but I think the main limits are, like land use regulation, more sociopolitical. In energy, it's kind of the same thing, NIMBYism is kind of the biggest thing. Maybe there's an R&D component that AI could contribute to. And then in transportation, again, we could automate a lot of transportation. Some of that's happening with autonomous cars, but we are having trouble automating our ports, for example, we're having trouble automating cargo railroads for similar make-work reasons.I think the bull case is you don't need AGI, really, really sophisticated AI that can do everything, but you do need to be able to swap out human workers for even simpler AI functions.I don't actually think that you need one-to-one replacement for humans, but you do need to get humans out of the loop in many, many more places.Growing pains of job market disruption (7:26)I'm sure that some people are hearing you talk about swapping out human workers, replacing human workers. They're thinking, this is a world of vast technologically-driven unemployment; that is what you are describing. Is that what you're describing?Not at all. If we had the kind of productivity boom we're talking about, the economy would be so incredibly hot, and you need that hot market. People have all kinds of fantasies about how good AI could get. Can it substitute for a human in every single thing? And I'm not even positing that. I'm saying if we could just get it good enough to substitute in some things, the economy's going to be booming, it's going to be hot, there will still be things that humans can do that AIs can't. There's lots of things that maybe we want a human to do, even if the AI can do it, and we will be able to afford that a lot better.I think that the world I'm thinking about is one where living standards are way higher for everybody — and higher levels of equality, even. If you have the sort of uneven productivity gains that we've had for the last several decades, where tech does really well, but every other part of the economy does badly, well, that drives a lot of regional inequality, that drives a lot of different kinds of demographic inequality, and if we had broad-base productivity growth, that means better living standards for everybody, and I think that's what we should aim for.When I talk about what you've been referring to as these sociopolitical factors or how we might slow down progress, slow down automation, the whimsical example I use is there being a law saying that yes, you can have kiosks in every McDonald's, but you have to have an employee standing next to the kiosk to actually punch the buttons.As you mentioned with this port worker strike, we don't need my scenario. That is kind of what's happening on these ports, where there could be a lot more automation, but because of both unions and our acquiescence to these unions, we don't have the kind of automation — forget about sci-fi — that doesn't exist in other places in the world. And I wonder if that doesn't sort of encapsulate, at least in this country, the challenge: Can we get our heads around the idea that it's okay in the long run, that there will be some downsides, and some people might be worse off, and we need to take care of those people, but that's the disruption we need to tolerate to move forward?You can't have a growing economy where there's no churn, where there's no displacement, where it's complete, where there's no dynamism. You need to be able to accept some level of change. I sympathize with people whose jobs get destroyed by automation. It is hard, but it's much less hard if the economy is super hot because we've been prioritizing productivity growth, and if that were the case, I think we'd find new jobs for those people very quickly. The process is not automatic, but it's much slower when you have low productivity growth and a stagnant economy than it is when you have high productivity growth and a booming economy.The question I always get is, what about the 60-year-old guy? What's he going to do? And I'm not sure I have a much better answer. Maybe there's other jobs, but it's tough to transition, so maybe the answer there is you cut him a check, you cut that 60-year-old a check, and if you have a high-productivity economy, you have the resources for that to be an option.Right! So that's the other thing is that we can afford to be generous with people if we have a really rapidly growing economy. It's that we don't have the resources if we're stagnating, if we're already overextended fiscally, that's a terrible position to be in because you can't actually afford to be generous. And if there are people that truly, like you said, maybe they're very old and it doesn't make sense to retrain, or something like that, they're near retirement, yeah, absolutely, we can afford that much better when GDP is much higher.Where do you think, as a nation, our head is at as far as embracing or not being fearful of disruption from technological change? If I only looked at where our head was at with trade, I would be very, very worried about entering a period of significant technological disruption, and I would assume that we will see lots and lots of pushback if AI, for instance, is the kind of important, transformative, general purpose technology that I hope it is.Again, if I look at trade, I think, “Boy, there's going to be a lot of pushback.” Then again, when I think about risk broadly, and maybe it's not quite the same thing, I think, “Well, then again, we seem to be more embracing of nuclear energy, which shows maybe — it's not the same thing, but it shows a greater risk tolerance.” And I'm always thinking, what's our societal risk tolerance? Where do you think we're at right now?I think most people, most Americans, don't actually think in those terms. I think most Americans just think about, “How are things going for me?” They kind of evaluate their own life, and if their communities, or whatever, have been struggling due to trade stuff, or something like that, they'll be against it. So I think the people who think in these more high-level terms, it's like societal elites, and I think normal people who have just lived under 50 years of stagnation, they're kind of distrustful of the elites right now: “I don't pay attention to policy that closely, and my life is bad, at least in some dimensions is not as good as I wanted it to be, it's hasn't had the increase that my parents' generation had,” or something like that. And they're very distrustful of elites, and they're very mad, and you see this nihilistic populism popping up.You see kind of a diverse array of responses to this nihilistic populism. Some people might say, “Well yeah, elites really have messed up and we need to do what the common people want.” And then the other people are like, “No, we can't do that. We need to stay the course.” But I think that there's a hybrid response, where it's like, the elites really have done bad, but we don't just want to do what the populists want, we want to just have better elite-led policies, which include things like, we have to take productivity growth seriously, we can't just paper over a lot of the tensions and the conflicts that arise from that, we need to embrace them head-on and do everything we can to produce an economy that is productive, that works for everybody, but maybe not in the way that the populists think it will work.You can't have a growing economy where there's no churn, where there's no displacement, where it's complete, where there's no dynamism. You need to be able to accept some level of change.The politics of productivity growth (15:20)I would love to see what American politics looks like if the rest of this decade we saw the kind of economic productivity and wage growth that we saw in the fat part of the 1990s. We act like the current environment, that's our reality, and that's our reality as far as the eye can see, but I'll tell you, in the early '90s, there was a lot of gloom and doom about the economy, about productivity, how fast we could grow, the rise and fall of great powers, and America was overstretched, and after really three or four years of strong growth, it's like America Triumphant. And I'm wondering if that would be the politics of 2030 if we were able to generate that kind of boom.Yeah, I think that's totally right. And if you look at total factor productivity, which is my KPI [key performance indicator] or whatever, if you look at 1995 to 2005, you were back to almost two percent growth, which is what we had from 1920 to 1973. So you had a slow period from 1973 to 1995, and an even slower period since 2005, and you get back to that two percent. That's the magic number. I think if we had TFP at two percent, that changes everything. That's a game-changer for politics, for civility, for social stability, we'd really be going places if we had that.I was mentioning our reaction to trade and nuclear power. The obvious one, which I should have mentioned, is how we are reacting to AI right now. I think it's a good sign that Congress has not produced some sort of mega regulation bill, that this recent bill in California was not signed by Governor Newsom. Congress has spent time meeting with technologists and economists trying to learn something about AI, both the benefits and risks.And I think the fact that it seems like, even though there was this rush at some point where we needed to have a pause, we needed to quickly regulate it, that seems to have slowed down, and I think that's a good sign that perhaps we're able to hit a good balance here between wanting to embrace the upside and not utterly panicking that we're producing the Terminator.Absolutely. I think AI is something where the benefits are very clear, we're starting to see them already. The harms are extremely hypothetical, it's not evidence-based, it's really a lot of sci-fi scenarios. I think the right attitude in that kind of world is to let things ride for a while. If there are harms that arise, we can address them in narrowly tailored ways.I think government is sometimes criticized for being reactive, but reactive is the right approach for a lot of issues. You don't want to slow things down preemptively. You want to react to real facts on the ground. And if we need to react quickly, okay, we'll react quickly, but in a narrowly tailored way that addresses real harms, not just hypothetical stuff.I love what you're saying there about reaction. I'm a big preparer. I love preparation. If I'm going to go anywhere, I over-prepare for all eventualities, I will bring a messenger bag so if the world should end while I'm out, I'll be okay. I love to prepare. But one lesson I draw from the pandemic is that only gets you so far, preparation, because before the pandemic, there were a gazillion white papers about the possibility of a pandemic, all kinds of plans as a culture, we were sort of marinating in pandemic apocalypse films, maybe about turning us into zombies rather than giving us a disease.And then when we finally have a pandemic, it's like, “Where's the respirators? Where's this, where's that? We didn't have enough of this.” And so, while I'm sure preparation is great, what really helped us is we reacted. We reacted in real time because we're a rich country, we're a technologically advanced country, and we came up with a technological fix in a vaccine. To me — and again, I'm not sure how this is you meant it — but the power of being able to react effectively, boy, that's a pretty good capability of a well-functioning country.Yeah, and a slight difference between the pandemic and AI is it was not the first pandemic. AI is just such a unique set of theorized risks that people are like, nothing like this has ever happened before. This is like the introduction of a brand new super-intelligent species to the planet. This is the first time two intelligent species — if you want to count humans as an intelligent species — two intelligent species will the planet at the same time. And the theorization here is just so far out of the spectrum of our experience that it is hard to even see how you could prepare if those risk materialize. The only intelligent thing that is likely to do any good is to have our eyes open, and let's see what the harms are as they materialize.The problem with coming up with remedies for theorized harms is that the remedies never go away once they're implemented. Safety regulation never gets laxer over time. And so if you're implementing safety regulations because of real safety problems, okay, fair play, to some extent. I think in some dimensions we're too safe, but it kind of makes sense. But if you're doing it to just theorized harms that have never materialized, I think that's a big mistake.And you've written about this fairly recently. To me, there's a good kind of complexity with an economy that you have a high-functioning economy where people can connect, and colleges and universities, and businesses, and entrepreneurs, these networks work together to produce computer chips or large language models. That's a good kind of complexity.But then there's the other kind of complexity, in which you just have layer after layer of bureaucracy, and programs meant to solve a problem that was a problem 20 years ago and is no longer a problem, and that kind of complexity, that's not the kind we want, right?Yeah, I think you want the sophistication in the economy, but in a way that works for everybody. There have to be benefits to it. If you increase the burden of complexity without producing any net benefits, then people start to rebel against it, they start to be indifferent to or apathetic about the health of society. And there's an anthropologist, Joseph Tainter, who wrote this book, The Collapse of Complex Societies, and his theory is that once you have complexity without the marginal benefits of complexity, you're in for a shock, at some point, when people start becoming apathetic or hostile to the current order. And the complexity grows and shrinks as a system, you can't ever just control like, “Oh, let's do more, or let's do one percent less complexity.” Once people start to rebel against it, it snowballs and you could end up with a very bad situation.The problem with coming up with remedies for theorized harms is that the remedies never go away once they're implemented. Safety regulation never gets laxer over time.The future of clean energy (23:35)Nuclear versus solar versus geothermal: What do you like there?Solar panels have massively come down in cost, and we're not that far away from — in sort of number of doublings of deployment, and sort of long-deployment space — we're not that far away from the cost being so low that . . . you could almost round the panels cost to free. It almost makes sense. And the problem is, if you look at the solar electricity costs on utility-scale farms, they have not really moved in the last few years. And I think this is in large part because we're designing the solar farms wrong, we're not designing them for the era of cheap panels, we're designing them, still, to track the sun, and complex mechanisms, and too much space between the panels, and too much mowing required, and all that. So as we adapt to the new paradigm of very, very cheap panels, I think that you'll get lower solar costs.I think the other thing that is obviously complimentary to all of these sources actually is battery innovation. I'm very excited about one particular new cathode chemistry that maybe could drive the cost way, way down for lithium ion batteries. And so you're in a world where solar and batteries is potentially very, very cheap. And so for nuclear and geothermal, they have some advantages over solar.If batteries get cheap, the advantage of not the firmness . . . I think people think that the advantage of these sources versus solar is just that solar is variable and the other sources are constant, but that's less of an advantage if batteries are cheap, and I think you also want batteries to be able to respond to the fluctuations in demand. If we had an entirely nuclear-powered economy, the nuclear plants actually want to run at constant speed. You don't want to ramp them up and down very quickly, but demand fluctuates. And so you still want batteries to be a buffer there and be the lowest-cost way to balance the network.So the things that nuclear and geothermal can really compete on is land density — even gigawatt-scale nuclear where you have these giant exclusion zones and tons of land around them and so on, they're still more dense per acre than solar, and geothermal is maybe even denser because you don't need that exclusion zone, and so they could be much, much better in terms of density.There's an advantage — if you want a lot of power in a city, you probably want that to be supplied by nuclear. If you're more rural, you could do solar. Another possibility is portability. So there's future versions of nuclear that are more mobile. People have talked about space-based nuclear for being able to go to Mars or something like that, you want thermonuclear propulsion and you can't do that with solar. Or powering submarines and stuff. So I think there's always a place for nuclear.And then the other advantage for both nuclear and geothermal is if you don't need to produce electricity. So if you're producing just the heat — it turns out a big part of the cost of any sort of thermal source is converting it to electricity. You have to have these giant steam turbines that are very capital intensive. And so, if you just need heat, say up to 600 degrees C heat for nuclear and maybe 400 degrees C heat for deep geothermal, those are really good sources for doing that, and maybe if we had continued advances in drilling technology for geothermal or if we could figure out the regulatory stuff for nuclear, I think you could have very cheap industrial thermal energy from either of those sources.Nuclear and geothermal are competing against a backdrop where we'll probably have pretty cheap solar, but there's still some advantages and these sources still have some utility and we should get good at both of them.What do you think that energy mix looks like in 25 years, the electrical generation mix for this country?It would be surprising if it wasn't a lot of solar. My friend Casey Handmer thinks it's going to be 90-plus percent solar, and I think that's a little crazy.Do you happen to know what the percent is now?Oh, I don't know. It's probably like three or four or something like that, off the top of my head, maybe less. The other question is, what's the base? I think a lot of people just want to replace the energy we have now with clean energy, and much more we need to be thinking about growing the energy supply. And so I think there's a question of how much solar we could deploy, but then also how much other stuff are we deploying? Let's do a lot of everything. You do have to drive the cost of some of these sources down a bit for it to make sense, but I think we can.And then the real gains happen when maybe some of these . . . what if you could do some sort of conversion without steam turbines? What if you had ways to convert the thermal energy to electricity without running a steam cycle, which is hundreds-of-year-old technology? EssentiallyYou're just finding a new way to heat it up.Yeah, so you look at why has solar come down so much? It's because it's solid-state, easy to manufacture, any manufacturing process improvements just move forward to all future solar panels. If we had thermoelectric generators or other ways of converting the heat to electricity, that could be really great, and then there's other kinds of nuclear that are like solid-state conversion, like alpha voltaics and things like that. So you could have a box with cobalt 60 in it that's decaying and producing particles that you're converting to electricity, and that would be solid state. It's sometimes called a “nuclear battery,” it's not really a battery, but that would be a way to power cars maybe with something like that. That would be awesome.Nuclear and geothermal are competing against a backdrop where we'll probably have pretty cheap solar, but there's still some advantages and these sources still have some utility and we should get good at both of them.The road to a breakthrough (30:25)When, if ever, this century, do you think we get AGI, and when, if ever, this century, do you think we get a commercial fusion reactor?AGI, I'm still not really a 100 percent clear on how it's defined. I think that AI will get increasingly more capable, and I think that's an exciting future. Do we even need to emulate every part of the human brain in silicon? I don't think so. Do we need it to have emotions? Do we need it to have its own independent drive? We definitely don't need it to be a perfect replica of a human brain in terms of every capability, but I think it will get more capable over time. I think there's going to be a lot of hidden ways in which AGI, or powerful AI, or highly capable AI is going to happen slower than we think.I think my base reasoning behind this is, if you look at neurons versus transistors, neurons are about a million times more energy efficient. So six orders of magnitude is kind of what we have to traverse to get something that is equally capable. And maybe there's some tricks or whatever that you can do that means you don't have to be equally capable on an energy basis, but you still need to get four orders of magnitude better. And then the other thing about it is that, if you look at current margins that people are working on, things like the ChatGPT o1 model, it's a lot slower, it does a lot of token generation behind the scenes to get the answer, and I think that that's the kind of stuff that could maybe drive progress.Let's say we have a world where you ask an AI for a cure for cancer, and you run it on a big data center, and it runs for six months or a year, and then it spits out the answer, here's the cure for cancer, that's still a world where we have very, very powerful AI, but it's slow and consumes a lot of resources, but still ultimately worth it. I think that might be where we're headed, in a way, is that kind of setup. And so is that AGI? Kind of. It's not operating the same way as humans are. So this is different.You're not going to fall in love with it. It's nothing like that.I'm pretty uncertain about AGI: A) what it means, but what does it even look like in the end?Fusion, I'll give you a hot take here, which is, I think there will be net energy gain fusion developed in this decade. I think that someone will have it. I think that probably the first people to get it will be doing it in a completely uneconomical way that will never work economically. Most of the people that are working on fusion are working on DT fusion, which is another one of these sources that basically produces heat, and then you use a steam turbine, and then that produces electricity. I think that the steam turbine is just a killer in terms of the added costs.So all these sources are basically fancy ways of boiling water and then running a steam turbine. So what you want to look at is: What is the cheapest way to boil water? With fission, you just hold two magic rocks together and they boil water. With geothermal, you drill a hole in the ground and send water down there and it boils. With these DT fusion reactors, you build the most complex machine mankind has ever seen, and you use that to boil water — that's not going to be as cheap as fission should be. So I think that we'll struggle to compete with fission if we can ever get our act together.There's other kinds of fusion called aneutronic fusion. That's harder to do. I think it's still possible, maybe this decade, that someone will crack it, but that's harder to do. But the nice thing about that is that you can harvest electricity from those plasmas without a steam turbine. So if it's going to be economical fusion, I think it's plausible by 2030 somebody could crack it, but it would be that aneutronic version, and it is just technically a bit harder. You'll see some reports in a couple of years, like, “Oh, these people, they got net energy out of a fusion reactor.” It's like, okay, it's a scientific breakthrough, but look for the cost. Is it going to be competitive with these other sources?Do we even need to emulate every part of the human brain in silicon? I don't think so . . . We definitely don't need it to be a perfect replica of a human brain in terms of every capability, but I think it will get more capable over time.Reforming NEPA (35:19)Do you think we've sort of got a handle, and we've begun to wrangle the National Environmental Policy Act [NEPA] to the ground? Where are we on reforming it so that it is not the kind of obstacle to progress that you've written so much about and been a real leader on?My base scenario is we're going to get reforms on it every two years. So we had some a year and a half ago with the Fiscal Responsibility Act, I think we were possibly going to get some in the lame duck session this year in Congress. None of these reforms are going to go far enough, is the bottom line. I think that the problem isn't going to go away, and so the pressure is going to continue to be there, and we're just going to keep having reforms every two years.And a lot of this is driven by the climate movement. So say what you will about the climate movement, they're the only mainstream movement in America right now that's not complacent, and they're going to keep pushing for, we've got to do something that lets us build. If we want to transform American industry, that means we've got to build, and NEPA gets in the way of building, so it's going to have to go.So I think my baseline case is we get some reforms this year in the lame duck, probably again two years later, probably again two years later, and then maybe like 2030, people have kind of had enough and they just say, “Oh, let's just repeal this thing. We keep trying to reform it, it doesn't work.” And I think you could repeal NEPA and the environment would be fine. I am pro-environment, but you don't need NEPA to protect the environment. I think it's just a matter of coming to terms with, this is a bad law and probably shouldn't exist.I am pro-environment, but you don't need NEPA to protect the environment. I think it's just a matter of coming to terms with, this is a bad law and probably shouldn't exist.The state of pro-abundance (37:08)What is the state of, broadly, a pro-abundance worldview? What is the state of that worldview in both parties right now?I think there's a growing, but very small, part of each party that is thinking in these terms, and I think the vision is not really concrete yet. I think they don't actually know what they're trying to achieve, but they kind of understand that it's something in this general direction that we've been talking about. My hope is that, obviously, the faction in both parties that is thinking this way grows, but then it also develops a little bit more of a concrete understanding of the future that we're trying to build, because I think without that more-concrete vision, you're not actually necessarily tackling the right obstacles, and you need to know where you're trying to go for you to be able to figure out what the obstacles are and what the problems you need to address are.Faster, Please! is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit fasterplease.substack.com/subscribe

For years, we've been told that lower mortgage rates could reignite homebuyer demand and help improve affordability so first-time homebuyers (or even rookie landlords) can finally buy their first property. But, with mortgage interest rates lowering right before our eyes, we're noticing something peculiar—affordability isn't improving. Home prices are staying stagnant, if not rising. Thanks to America's “golden handcuffs,” we're still in a housing market standoff, but there might be some solutions to fix it. We're bringing on The New York Times' Rukmini Callimachi, a real estate correspondent, to shed light on the vast affordability crisis affecting America. With homes “unmanageably expensive,” regardless of whether you're renting or buying, we need solutions that don't just spark up demand (like lowering mortgage rates). There's one glaring problem plaguing the property market, but why won't anybody fix it? Today, we're cracking this discussion wide open, speaking on the solutions that could ACTUALLY increase affordability in the future, the rising homelessness problem affecting working Americans and students, and how NIMBYism (not in my backyard) could be forcefully put to stop as communities struggle to build enough housing. If you want to get in (or get back in) the real estate game, whether as an investor, house hacker, or first-time homebuyer, these solutions could directly affect you! In This Episode We Cover: Housing inventory update and the “golden handcuffs” keeping housing constrained  Why homebuyers are stuck and the magic interest rate that could unlock demand  The root of our housing problems and what we must do NOW to fix it  Growing homelessness (even among working adults) and why housing costs have gotten too high  Modular home building and how this new type of construction could change the housing market forever  And So Much More! Links from the Show Join BiggerPockets for FREE Let Us Know What You Thought of the Show! On the Market Grab Dave's Book, “Real Estate by the Numbers” Find Investor-Friendly Lenders See Dave at BPCON2024 in Cancun! Cheaper, Faster, and Better for Investors: Modular Homes Make a Comeback Read More from Rukmini Interest Rates Have Dropped, but Homeowners Are Not Moving Connect with Dave 00:00 Intro 02:35 America's “Golden Handcuffs” 06:52 Homebuyers Are Stuck 11:30 Affordability Solutions 23:55 Growing Homelessness 26:14 Construction MUST Change 29:56 Let's Get DENSE Check out more resources from this show on BiggerPockets.com and https://www.biggerpockets.com/blog/real-estate-1026 Interested in learning more about today's sponsors or becoming a BiggerPockets partner yourself? Email advertise@biggerpockets.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In Episode 60, Carter talks with Andrés Duany who, along with his wife, Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk, is the founding partner DPZ CoDesign. DPZ is best known for the “rediscovery” of neighborhood structures which influenced the design of Seaside, the acclaimed project renowned for its traditional town plan, streetscapes, meeting places and buildings. Following up on Seaside, the firm proposed a re-integration of urban components within traditional neighborhood development which became the model for regulation of compact mixed use neighborhood developments throughout the Country. In this episode, you'll learn: What is traditional neighborhood development (TND). How Seaside came about and how DPZ approached the planning and design effort. Lessons learned from the planning and buildout of Seaside. How TND applies to larger master planned developments. How TNDs can assist in combating NIMBYism and garner jurisdictional approvals.   Show Notes DPZ CoDesign Contact Information - https://www.dpz.com/contact/ Seaside Link - https://www.dpz.com/projects/seaside/ Playa Vista Link - https://www.dpz.com/projects/playa-vista/ Lexicon - https://www.dpz.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Lexicon-2014.pdf Complimentary Offers for Land to Lots™ Listeners Complimentary Bond Sizing Analysis: Get all the shownotes here Learn more about Launch Development Finance Advisors Connect with Carter Froelich Connect With Launch Development Finance Advisors Carter Froelich – 480-828-9555 / carter@launch-dfa.com Carter Froelich hosts the Land to Lots™ podcast powered by Launch Development Finance Advisors. Carter shares how he and his team help their clients finance infrastructure, reduce costs, and mitigate risks all with the goal of enhancing project profitability.

Canada has 38 of the world's 100 safe injection sites. But for how much longer will we be the global leader in this controversial form of dealing with addiction? Politicians and communities from BC to Ontario to New Brunswick are backing away from supporting the sites. With Ontario alone shutting down 10 sites. Jesse and journalist Derek Finkle tackle a very personal story at the heart of the safe injection site closure debate.Credits: Jesse Brown (Host), Caleb Thompson (Audio Editor), max collins (Production Manager), Bruce Thorson (Senior Producer)Photo Credit Ted McGrathFurther reading:Crackdown Podcast Inside the Battle Over Unsafe Injection Crime and Murder l National Post Derek Finkle: 'Safe injection' ruined my community; about time for provincial review l National PostHarm Reduction Disturbing Safe Injection Site l National PostDoug Ford to ban safe injection sites within 200 metres of schools and child-care centres l The StarSponsors: oxio: Head over to canadaland.oxio.ca and use code CANADALAND for your first month free! Squarespace: Check out Squarespace.com/canadaland for a free trial, and when you're ready to launch use code canadaland to save 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain. Article: Article is offering our listeners $50 off your first purchase of $100 or more. To claim this offer, visit https://article.com/canadaland and the discount will be automatically applied at checkout.If you value this podcast, support us! You'll get premium access to all our shows ad free, including early releases and bonus content. You'll also get our exclusive newsletter, discounts on merch at our store, tickets to our live and virtual events, and more than anything, you'll be a part of the solution to Canada's journalism crisis, you'll be keeping our work free and accessible to everybody. Support Canadaland at canadaland.com/join You can listen ad-free on Amazon Music—included with Prime.Additional Music is by Audio Network. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Impact Real Estate Podcast is now "Beyond the Resume"! Join your co-hosts Chris Papa and Lisa Flicker as they talk with Sam Hales, the Founder & CEO of SG Communities. In this conversation, Sam discusses his journey into the mobile home park industry, highlighting the investment landscape, operational challenges, and the importance of community pride. He shares insights on attracting capital, the impact of NIMBYism on supply, and the resilience of manufactured housing during economic downturns. The discussion also touches on company growth, hiring strategies, and the significance of mentorship in personal and professional development.Apple Podcasts: https://apple.co/3I3nkG9Spotify: https://spoti.fi/35ZJGLTWeb: https://www.jacksonlucas.com/podcast/sam-hales00:00 Introduction and Background00:34 Advantages of Mobile Home Parks06:34 Managing Mobile Home Parks and Amenities08:59 Challenges with Squatters12:15 NIMBYism and Limited Supply15:16 Potential for Technological Advancements23:43 Challenges of Accounting in Mobile Home Parks25:31 Outsourcing Accounting to the Philippines28:09 Creating a Positive Living Environment28:55 The 'Bus Test' for Community Impact30:39 Book Recommendation: Building an Elite Organization34:39 The Influence of Mentors

Are politicians missing the mark on the NAR settlement? Joining us in this episode is Gary Acosta, CEO of the National Association of Hispanic Real Estate Professionals (NAHREP), who highlights the unintended consequences of decoupling commissions, emphasizing that it could make homeownership less affordable, especially for first-time homebuyers, and the growing dominance of institutional investors in the market.    We also talk about NAR's stance on fair housing and affordability, and why Gary is disappointed with their rigid approach. Touching on tricky issues like NIMBYism and zoning laws, as well as the need for NAR's advocacy role in Washington.   Connect with Gary on LinkedIn. And check out his site garyacosta.com.    Follow this link for Gary's article mentioned in this episode.   For more on NAHREP check out - Facebook - X - Instagram - LinkedIn - YouTube. Visit online at nahrep.org.   Follow Real Estate Insiders Unfiltered Podcast on Instagram - YouTube - Facebook - LinkedIn - TikTok. Visit us online at realestateinsidersunfiltered.com. This podcast is produced by Two Brothers Creative 2024.

Blind spots. In his book, EXCLUDED: How Snob Zoning, NIMBYism, and Class Bias Build the Walls We Don't See, RICHARD KAHLENBERG points out not only how restrictive zoning laws negatively influence all sorts of things in this country, but also that such laws are more likely or more restrictive in communities that are otherwise more liberal and progressive. KAHLENBERG also testified on the side of doing away with race-based affirmative action in higher education. It's a provocative conversation. You can learn more at richardkahlenberg.org 

When Cody Fischer decided to get into real estate development, he had a vision. He wanted to build affordable, energy efficient apartments in Minneapolis, not far from where he grew up.His vision was well-timed because, in 2019, Minneapolis's city council passed one of the most ambitious housing plans in the nation. One aim of that plan was to alleviate the city's housing shortage by encouraging developers like Cody to build, build, build.But when Cody tried to build, he ran into problems. The kinds of problems that arise all over the country when cities confront a short supply of housing, and try to build their way out.Today on the show, NIMBYism, YIMBYism and why it's so hard to fix the housing shortage. Told through the story of two apartment buildings in Minneapolis.This episode was hosted by Amanda Aronczyk and Kenny Malone. It was produced by Emma Peaslee and Sofia Shchukina, and edited by Molly Messick. It was engineered by James Willets and fact-checked by Sierra Juarez. Alex Goldmark is Planet Money's executive producer. Help support Planet Money and hear our bonus episodes by subscribing to Planet Money+ in Apple Podcasts or at plus.npr.org/planetmoney.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

Guardian Australia's political editor Karen Middleton speaks with New South Wales Liberal senator Andrew Bragg about the Coalition's plan on housing, and the federal implications of the NSW Liberals' catastrophic failure to lodge paperwork for the local government elections

 What’s Trending: Kamala Harris selects MN Governor Tim Walz to be her running mate. Jason questions whether he is as down the middle as the Harris campaign says he is. Prominent Seattle business owners are fed up with crime in Downtown Seattle as a major Starbucks location closes over safety concerns. // Live coverage of Tim Walz’s first speech as the Democratic nominee for Vice President. // A group in Seattle’s Belltown neighborhood is trying to block he construction of a building because of birds.

We're excited to introduce our guest today, Dave Codrea, co-founder and partner at Greenleaf Capital Partners, a prominent real estate investment firm headquartered in Atlanta. With over two decades of industry experience, Dave offers a wealth of knowledge and insights into the dynamic commercial real estate landscape. We look forward to delving into Dave's innovative strategies for identifying and addressing challenges in the CRE market, as well as exploring how Greenleaf is adapting commercial spaces creatively to meet the evolving needs of tenants and investors. Discover Greenleaf's unique approach to commercial real estate investing as Dave shares how they tackle vacancy issues and underperforming assets by converting large commercial spaces into smaller, more manageable units for tenants like medical offices and indoor training facilities.  Explore the challenges of financing commercial properties with 5-year loan terms and prepayment penalties, and how Greenleaf aligns investors' interests. Dave also discusses broader market trends, including converting office buildings into residential spaces and adding amenities like pickleball courts in office parks. Learn about Greenleaf's capital-raising strategies and the firm's resilience in the ever-evolving market. Don't miss this episode for a fascinating glimpse into innovative commercial real estate strategies! Things we discussed in this episode: Greenleaf Capital Partners' focus on identifying and solving problems in commercial real estate, particularly with vacant or underperforming properties. The firm's strategy of converting larger commercial spaces into smaller, more manageable units for tenants like medical offices, indoor training facilities, and single-story suburban offices. The challenges of financing and refinancing commercial properties, including the prevalence of 5-year loan terms with prepayment penalties. The potential for converting large office buildings or retail spaces into residential use, and the structural limitations that can make this difficult. The rise of amenities like pickleball courts in office parks, and the concerns around noise and NIMBYism. Greenleaf's approach to raising capital through syndicating deals to individual investors with a minimum investment of $25,000. The importance of aligning investors in real estate deals to avoid future problems. The tax benefits of using 1031 exchanges and depreciation for active real estate professionals investing in Greenleaf's deals. The diverse range of tenants Greenleaf has attracted, from recycling electronics to race car simulation companies. The resilience of the U.S. economy and the importance of optimism and perseverance in business. Get in touch with Dave: Linkedin - https://www.linkedin.com/in/davidcodrea/overlay/contact-info/ Website - https://www.gogreenleafmanagement.com/ Email - dave@greenleafmgmt.com #realestatepodcast #realestate #realestateinvestor #realestatelaw #realestateagent #RealEstateInvesting #CommercialRealEstate #CREInvesting #AssetClassDiversification #VacantPropertyRevitalization #TenantRepurposing #SyndicatedDeals #TaxBenefits #ResilienceInCRE #InnovativeInvestmentStrategies #GreenleafCapitalPartners Follow Us! Join Jason Muth of Prideaway Stays and Straightforward Short-Term Rentals and Real Estate Attorney / Broker Rory Gill for another episode of The Real Estate Law Podcast! The Real Estate Law Podcast Website and on Instagram and YouTube Prideaway Stays Website and on Facebook and LinkedIn Straightforward Short-Term Rentals Website and on Instagram Attorney Rory Gill on LinkedIn Jason Muth on LinkedIn This podcast and these show notes are not legal advice, but we hope you find both entertaining and informative.

https://youtu.be/SYFLHrnvtaQMatt and Sean talk about whether we have enough room for solar panels to power the world, and alternatives to plastics like mushrooms. It's a double duty episode that will really grow on you. Sorry … couldn't resist.Watch the Undecided with Matt Ferrell episodes;-5 BEST Alternatives to Finally Replace Plastic https://youtu.be/E-cnoSAaUa8?list=PLnTSM-ORSgi6ObB8Ao0IpRhOgYO27wbSd-Why Don't We Put Solar on ALL Rooftops? https://youtu.be/gkUdfU41iUg?list=PLnTSM-ORSgi7uzySCXq8VXhodHB5B5OiQYouTube version of the podcast: https://www.youtube.com/stilltbdpodcastGet in touch: https://undecidedmf.com/podcast-feedbackSupport the show: https://pod.fan/still-to-be-determinedFollow us on X: @stilltbdfm @byseanferrell @mattferrell or @undecidedmfUndecided with Matt Ferrell: https://www.youtube.com/undecidedmf ★ Support this podcast ★

Christine Quinn, president & CEO of Win, the largest provider of shelter and supportive services for homeless families in New York City, reacts to the news that President Biden has dropped out of the presidential campaign, especially in her role as a Democratic delegate, and talks about the protests against the homeless shelter in Bensonhurst and other related news.  

Coming to you from FreedomFest in Las Vegas, I talk with Founder Mark Skousen. He's been named one of the World's Top 20 Living Economists. Also, an event summary with GRE Investment Coach, Naresh. Learn about the deleterious consequences of rent control. President Joe Biden supports it (somewhat). If four tenants live in identical fourplex units, it actually makes sense for them to pay different rent amounts. I explain. We can construct more housing by relaxing zoning requirements in the right way—reduce off-street parking requirements, increase ADUs, no rent control, reduce minimum lawn sizes. There's higher homelessness in L.A., San Francisco, and Austin than Houston. Houston has a lower-cost market, few zoning requirements, and less NIMBY mindset. Politicians run on platforms like immigration, abortion, and inflation. But they don't run on reducing the debt because they don't see it as a problem that they created. At FreedomFest, I attended a presidential debate between the current candidates of the Libertarian Party, Green Party, and Constitution Party. Most or all agreed that the Fed should be abolished. The common theme at FreedomFest was: “Government, get out of the way.” Resources mentioned: For access to properties or free help with a GRE Investment Coach, start here: GREmarketplace.com Get mortgage loans for investment property: RidgeLendingGroup.com or call 855-74-RIDGE  or e-mail: info@RidgeLendingGroup.com Invest with Freedom Family Investments.  You get paid first: Text FAMILY to 66866 For advertising inquiries, visit: GetRichEducation.com/ad Will you please leave a review for the show? I'd be grateful. Search “how to leave an Apple Podcasts review”  GRE Free Investment Coaching: GREmarketplace.com/Coach Best Financial Education: GetRichEducation.com Get our wealth-building newsletter free— text ‘GRE' to 66866 Our YouTube Channel: www.youtube.com/c/GetRichEducation Follow us on Instagram: @getricheducation   Complete episode transcript:   Keith Weinhold** ((00:00:01)) - - Welcome to GRE. I'm Keith Weinhold. I'm here at the world's largest gathering of free minds. It's a conference called Freedom Fest where I talk to the conference founder. He's been named one of the top 20 living economists in the world today, as well as a talk with one of our great investment coaches to learn what my conference takeaways are and more. Freedom, life, liberty and the pursuit of real estate and investing today. And get rich education.   Robert Syslo** ((00:00:36)) - -  Since 2014, the powerful get Rich education podcast has created more passive income for people than nearly any other show in the world. This show teaches you how to earn strong returns from passive real estate, investing in the best markets without losing your time being a flipper or landlord. Show host Keith Weinhold writes for both Forbes and Rich Dad Advisors advisors and delivers a new show every week. Since 2014, there's been millions of listeners downloads and 188 world nations. He has A-list show guests include top selling personal finance author Robert Kiyosaki. Get Rich education can be heard on every podcast platform, plus has had its own dedicated Apple and Android listener.   Robert Syslo** ((00:01:10)) - -  Phone apps build wealth on the go with the get Rich education podcast. Sign up now for the get Rich education podcast or visit get Rich education.com.   Corey Coates** ((00:01:21)) - -  You're listening to the show that has created more financial freedom than nearly any show in the world. This is get rich education.   Keith Weinhold** ((00:01:37)) - -  We're gonna go from Oswego, New York to Lake Oswego, Oregon, and across 188 nations worldwide. I'm Keith, while you are inside, get rich education. I'm attending a free office live and in person in Las Vegas today. One key economic freedom and what makes a free market free is that ability for producers and suppliers and landlords to set prices based on what the market will bear, whether that's a high price or a low price. Now, what's wrong with rent control, which is a law that puts a ceiling on the amount of rent that you're allowed to charge? Well, that sounds like a nice thing to do for one set of people in the short term. Well, rent control has the same effect as price controls on consumer goods.   Keith Weinhold** ((00:02:30)) - -  If the government thinks that cars are becoming too expensive, and they set up a new law that says that you can't charge more than $20,000 if you want to sell a new car, well, then those manufacturers will stop producing cars and soon enough, you, the consumer, cannot buy a car. You'd no longer have an automobile market at all. And the consumer suffers under no choice and even austerity. Put price controls on beef jerky and companies will stop making beef jerky. Put price controls on rent called rent control, and landlords have zero incentive to provide property, no motivation to improve property. And there is a raft just reams of evidence and studies out there that show that rent control, that is a surefire way to then reduce the supply of functional housing, just like the supply of cars or beef jerky would get cut. That's especially not a good solution in today's real estate supply constrained world. And, you know, here's what's interesting. The government created the inflation in the first place. That led to the high price problem that they think they can cure through rent control.   Keith Weinhold** ((00:03:52)) - -  I mean, government keeps trying to solve a problem that they created. Well, just take a new course, a new direction and stop the inflation. In that way, you'll cure the higher prices long term and then near term. What you can do is relax zoning requirements in order to create more housing. I mean, in three cases here, less government cures the problems, no inflation, no rent control, and thirdly, no stringent zoning. Knock down all three of those walls and instead, now what have you done? You've encouraged a bunch of builders to come into a market. You've encouraged competition. And what does competition do? It increases quality and it yeah, lowers prices. So cure the problem by knocking down the walls. You know, you as a landlord, I don't even think that there should be laws that say that you have got to charge every ten at the same rent amount. Yeah, and that is even if each one of your tenants has seemingly an identical unit, say, in a fourplex building.   Keith Weinhold** ((00:05:04)) - -  Now I'm on different fourplex buildings and I have most everyone like throughout history, I've had just about every tenant paid different rent amounts in the same building, even though all of the units were built at the same time and had the same square footage. Now a real estate investing newcomer, you know, they might think that that sounds unfair, that these tenants with basically identical units paying different rent amounts. But we all know how it works in practice, in real life. I mean, one of those four tenants might have the front unit with the best views, while the tenant with the best view. Well, of course they're going to be willing to pay more for that unit. Well, that right there, that's free market supply and demand. The fourplex unit with the best view will rent out faster and for more. But instead of that arrangement, if it's mandated, say, by the government that everyone in the building must pay the same rent, say that each of the four units must pay exactly $2,000.   Keith Weinhold** ((00:06:07)) - -  Oh, well, then the tenant with the worst view, which then has less benefit to living there, has to subsidize the tenant with the best view that already has the best benefit of living there, because they must all pay exactly $2,000. And then what about things like several months from now? Say you have a vacancy at Christmas. Well, it's hard to get a tenant to move at Christmas to get them in there. So you'll charge a low rent just to get someone in there then. Versus how you charge more now in summertime, because tenants demand units, a lot of them want to get settled in during the summer before the school year starts. What about a tenants living in your fourplex or rental single family home for five years, and their unit hasn't been painted or renovated in a while, and the tenant has seen you already. Well, they're probably going to pay less then a new tenant will in there say freshly painted unit. So my point is that even making every tenant of one individual fourplex building have to pay the same rent amount.   Keith Weinhold** ((00:07:10)) - -  Well, that is a form of rent control and that is actually unfair if they all have to pay the same rent amount. The free market is what's fair and enables a system of rent price discovery, instead of being confined and oppressed under rent control. Now here, the Freedom Fest in Las Vegas and we'll discuss the conference more. Today I attended one panel discussion. It was called How the Government Created the Housing Crisis and what we can do to Fix it, And it really gave specific solutions to provide more housing. This includes things like stop mandating a minimum square area for parking spaces. Stop mandating such large lawns. Instead, people can share a public park and relax the requirements that have so many easements out of property. Well, all that stuff is zoning in its stifles development and it leads to higher housing prices. Now, I maintain that not all zoning is bad. I don't think that you want a housing development surrounded by factories with smokestacks. So it's about relaxing zoning in the right way and promoting the right policies, like the benefits of a yimby movement.   Keith Weinhold** ((00:08:27)) - -  Yes, in my backyard. Removing off street parking mandates altogether and allowing more ADUs allow Single-Family homes on smaller lot sizes. And we've already seen some of that. We're seeing home builders do more of that. They're building single family homes closer together, smaller lot sizes. But a lot of the wrong strategies exist out there. And once people get the benefits, like the beneficiaries of these wrong strategies, I mean, they don't want to give them up. Like New York's rent stabilization program that gives rent breaks to wealthy New Yorkers that also have a pricey home out in the Hamptons. Well, that's not the right policy. That's not helping the people that need it most. And you know, when the wrong policies infiltrate a market, the reaction can be amazingly rapid. I mean, how rapid? Like, do you think you would see a construction project literally halt mid construction? Yeah. You actually can like construction cranes just stop swinging. In Saint Paul, Minnesota, you saw construction cranes stop mid-air mid construction.   Keith Weinhold** ((00:09:38)) - -  When Saint Paul moved toward a rent control of no more than 3% annual rent increases. Well, that's a form of rent control. When that happens, building stops because the developer knows that people don't want to buy those units or invest in those units or rent those units. And I've got more to discuss on housing shortly, but let's bring in the very founder, host and producer of Freedom Fest here. He has been named as one of the top 20 living economists in the world. Doctor Mark Skosan and you will hear some background noise in these conference interviews. We are at a conference at times. We're in the exhibit hall now. Interestingly, here with Mark, I bring up with him how much I dislike these political labels that just divide the nation. I mean, don't you agree that it would be great if the nation were less divided? Yes, we all would. Well, we can do our part by avoiding saying words like red and blue and oh, you know, I can't stand those maps.   Keith Weinhold** ((00:10:44)) - -  Then you see, I've mentioned this to you before. You see these maps in political season that show where the red states are and where the blue states are. I mean, how divisive and polarizing that is not unifying in the United States of America. The fact that this conference has a non divisive founder like Mark Skosan is what attracted me here. Sure enough, here you'll hear me tell him how much I appreciate this. This was prescient because the very next day after this interview that you're about to hear, that was the assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump. Hey, it's Keith Reinhold here. I'm at Freedom Fest with Freedom Fest host and founder Mark Scott. And thanks for having us here. Yeah. My pleasure, my pleasure. Thank you for coming. Well, I've got to tell you one reason that attracted me to this conference. I was concerned that it was going to be too politically partisan. And I respect you so much, because I know you have said that in most of all the books you've read, you've avoided these labels like liberal, conservative, left, right, red, blue, yes, progressive, conservative and all that.   Keith Weinhold** ((00:11:58)) - -  So that's what I'd like hearing when we talk about this conference championing principles of freedom and liberty. What does an American really need to know about freedom and liberty that's under attack today?   Mark Skousen** ((00:12:09)) - -  I think what we've tried to preach is the Adam Smith model, which you call the system of natural liberty. And what that meant was under the rule of law and justice and a robust competitive model. You've maximized the freedom of choice, freedom to choose your own work, your own business, how much salary you're going to charge or wages you're going to pay, whether you can hire or fire people. So within those rules, within those guidelines, you have maximum security. But in today's world, more and more everything, it's either being prohibited or mandated. So we're being squeezed from both sides. The idea of freedom of best to maximize freedom is for us to come together and find out what are the best solutions to improve our lives is the idea. So we talk philosophy, history, science and technology, healthy living, economics, politics.   Mark Skousen** ((00:13:05)) - -  It's all part of the program here. But it's not just a political conference.   Keith Weinhold** ((00:13:08)) - -  Part of this is lowering the guardrails and promoting free markets. The only thing that we've all seen happen in free markets is inflation, oftentimes ironically, created by some of those forces that put guardrails in place. So what does an investor there are a lot of investors here. Oh yeah. What does an investor need to know with regard to inflation today. How can the everyday person respond.   Mark Skousen** ((00:13:33)) - -  So one thing is we have a whole section on financial freedom because without financial freedom you're limited in what you can do and your influence that you can have. So this is very important. We live in an era of permanent inflation. Since World War two we've had permanent inflation. We didn't used to, but now we do because we're off the gold standard. We've adopted Keynesian economics, which means deficit spending all the time. We have adopted the dollar rather than gold. So we've lost that discipline. The fed is the engine of inflation. And they even have a policy of a minimum of at least 2% inflation rate.   Mark Skousen** ((00:14:10)) - -  We had a whole session. Actually Steve Forbes wasn't there, but Nathan Lewis is co-author of in the book inflation. We had a big session on what are the best inflation hedges. So we talk about gold and silver. The stock market, Bitcoin rallies, high bonds, real estate. We had all of those discussion. And that was the great thing about Freedom Fest is that you really do get answers and best solutions. At our conference, I attended that particular. Oh you did? Yeah.   Keith Weinhold** ((00:14:38)) - -  From Freedom Fest.   Mark Skousen** ((00:14:39)) - -  I've really.   Keith Weinhold** ((00:14:40)) - -  Enjoyed this.   Mark Skousen** ((00:14:41)) - -  So far. We have an exhibit hall.   Keith Weinhold** ((00:14:42)) - -  Which happens to be right. Oh yeah, we have breakout sessions that attendees can go to for the sessions that particularly interest. There are then a big general session where I've enjoyed presentations from Robert Kiyosaki to Ice-T. What is the future potential for getting Fest attendees? What would you like to tell them about what this conference entails? What they can.   Mark Skousen** ((00:15:03)) - -  Expect in the.   Keith Weinhold** ((00:15:03)) - -  Bank that they can.   Mark Skousen** ((00:15:04)) - -  Get? Well, one of the things is just the wonderful camaraderie that you feel, the buzz that you feel the meeting of like minded people who are all trying to seek best solutions rather than labels and attacking people.   Mark Skousen** ((00:15:18)) - -  And, we have the presidential debate here, for example. Well, we have all the third parties come together libertarians, the Constitution Party, the Green Party. We have RFK coming. The two major parties decided not to come. So, so much for their belief in democracy. But the idea is there's a there's something for everybody here. You want to improve your lifestyle, you want to prove your financial situation. You want to have better clarity on what is the proper role of government. Read about this A conference for you. This is an annual event that we usually have in the summer in Las Vegas and then other cities, and it's only 3 or 4. You know, we live busy lives, so can we come together once a year to learn to network, to socialize and celebrate liberty? I think we can if we plan ahead. When we.   Keith Weinhold** ((00:16:06)) - -  Drop these labels, we can get a clear download of sorts, remove filters.   Mark Skousen** ((00:16:11)) - -  And think.   Keith Weinhold** ((00:16:12)) - -  Clearly. And this is a largest gathering.   Mark Skousen** ((00:16:15)) - -  Of.   Keith Weinhold** ((00:16:15)) - -  Free minds. So for Mark Skelton I'm Keith Weigel. You heard Mark Skelton mentioned the presidential debate at Freedom Fest. I watched quite a bit of that. More on it later. Gray Investment coach narration is here in person with me at Freedom Fest. Coming up, he and I give you a download of some policy and real estate investing highlights that you can learn from. That's straight ahead. I'm Keith Reinhold, you're listening to get Rich education. Hey, you can get your mortgage loans at the same place where I get mine at Ridge Lending Group Nmls 42056. They provided our listeners with more loans than any provider in the entire nation because they specialize in income properties, they help you build a long term plan for growing your real estate empire with leverage. You can start your prequalification and chat with President Ridge personally. Start now while it's on your mind at Ridge Lending Group. Com that's Ridge Lending group.com. And Your bank is getting rich off of you. The national average bank account pays less than 1% on your savings.   Keith Weinhold** ((00:17:28)) - -  If your money isn't making 4%, you're losing your hard earned cash to inflation. Let the liquidity fund help you put your money to work with minimum risk. Your cash generates up to an 8% return with compound interest year in and year out, instead of earning less than 1% sitting in your bank account, the minimum investment is just 25 K. You keep getting paid until you decide you want your money back there. Decade plus track record proves they've always paid their investors 100% in full and on time. And I would know, because I'm an investor, to earn 8%. Hundreds of others are. Text. Family to 66866. Learn more about Freedom Family Investments Liquidity Fund on your journey to financial freedom through passive income. Text family to 66866.   T. Harv Eker** ((00:18:23)) - -  This is the millionaire mind trick. You're listening to the powerful get Rich education with Keith Weingarten.   Speaker UU** ((00:18:29)) - -  Don't quit your day dream.   Keith Weinhold** ((00:18:39)) - -  Hey, we're here talking about Freedom Fest, and I'm doing that alongside gray investment coach. The race. Hey, welcome in the race. Hey, Keith.   Keith Weinhold** ((00:18:47)) - -  We are here in real life at Freedom Fest in Las Vegas, Nevada. And what Freedom Fest does is it promotes and champions the ideals of freedom in the United States, and it includes a bunch of guest speakers that have made appearances here that you got to see in person, from Ice-T to Robert Kiyosaki to a bunch of presidential candidates as well, sometimes not championing principles of things like freedom and tolerance and liberty and tyranny. And I think anyone can agree to freedom on a this basis. But when you think it through and where the discussion really begins is, oh, well, if you have freedom, does that mean you should be free to do anything at all that you want? Probably not. And that's quite a discussion or tolerance. That's an ideal. That sounds good, but oh does that mean you should tolerate absolutely anything? No probably not. So that's where a lot of the interesting policy decisions and a lot of the interesting debates come in here in the race. And I attended some of these presentations together and other ones separately.   Keith Weinhold** ((00:19:53)) - -  So we have some different perspectives on what we've learned here at Freedom Fest. Grace, why don't you tell us about some of the good takeaways that you had? I had a lot of good takeaways, Keith.   Mark Skousen** ((00:20:03)) - -  This is not just about freedom in the United States. It's about freedom around the world. And you even interviewed and I believe we're playing that interview soon. If you haven't already played it yet, you interviewed probably the freest nation in the world. It's a brand new nation and it's called liberalism, like liberty, land libre land in Europe. And it touts itself as the freest nation in the world. So there have been all sorts of topics happening or talked about from business, finance, economics, real estate, crypto, bitcoin, gold to non-business and financial topics, which I actually found more interesting simply because.   Keith Weinhold** ((00:20:46)) - -  Most of what I listen to and what.   Mark Skousen** ((00:20:48)) - -  Is business finance econ. I wanted something a little bit different, especially as a father of two young boys. There were topics on gender and sexuality.   Keith Weinhold** ((00:21:01)) - -  And.   Mark Skousen** ((00:21:02)) - -  Vaccinations being the vaccinated versus unvaccinated. Robert F Kennedy was the keynote speaker at this conference, and he's a major presidential candidate.   Keith Weinhold** ((00:21:12)) - -  RL Jr RFK.   Mark Skousen** ((00:21:14)) - -  Jr. Even though he's not part of a major party, he's probably the most popular third party candidate over the last 30 years, so he's a candidate. There were lectures on healthcare.   Keith Weinhold** ((00:21:28)) - -  And.   Mark Skousen** ((00:21:29)) - -  How to be a better patient. And hold your doctor and hold the healthcare system accountable. The other aspect of this conference is there are some heavy hitters just walking around freely. Like I met Matt Ridley easily, I met Robert Kiyosaki, just he was dressed in very casual clothing to where people didn't even recognize them. And I did and told him how much I appreciated him. You know, you and the great podcast and huge inspiration for me. Yeah, people like Kiyosaki walking around freely, presidential candidates walking around freely, many third party candidates, not just RFK. He wasn't walking around as freely. He was in and out pretty quickly with really heavy security.   Mark Skousen** ((00:22:09)) - -  But you had other third party candidates, like the Libertarian Party candidate and the Green Party candidate walking around freely. I ran into Vivek Ramaswamy, his campaign manager, while getting pizza. We are both standing in line getting pizza. We ended up having about almost a two hour lunch. One day talking finance business Vivek's policies his future. So overall this conference very educational, inside the classroom, very beneficial outside the classroom. We're going to bring some guests on the great podcast. We met at this conference, publicists who we met at this conference who represent good guests, some business development opportunities, maybe some not just good guests, but people who we would recommend their newsletters, maybe even outside of the real estate industry, people, contacts within the real estate industry. So it's not all about what you learn in the classroom. It's also about who you meet, the networking, the business development. Overall, just a really, really successful experience. There were a few.   Keith Weinhold** ((00:23:11)) - -  Shows that snagged me as a guest while here as well.   Keith Weinhold** ((00:23:15)) - -  I'm talking about American freedom here chiefly. But you did mention Lebanon, a startup nation between Croatia and Serbia. That's seven square kilometers in area. You know, I think there are a lot of people at a conference like this and just anywhere in society where if you ask them, well, hey, if you think you could run the nation better if you were starting it all over again, how would you start a nation from a clean slate and actually got an opportunity to do that? Well, I'll be interviewing the president of Lebanon here, where this country is trying to seek recognition from any nation. They want to start their own country, and they want to do freedom and really begin a country of their rights.   Mark Skousen** ((00:23:55)) - -  And see is, is is.   Keith Weinhold** ((00:23:57)) - -  Is is.   Mark Skousen** ((00:23:57)) - -  Bitcoin I think not just crypto but it's bitcoin. And it's interesting because you hear a lot of times you don't like the country that you live in, go somewhere else. These people took it to a whole new level and said, well, we're just going to start our own country.   Mark Skousen** ((00:24:10)) - -  And and it's about three square miles. So it's about the size of the area that I lived in. Tampa, not even Tampa, just almost the neighborhood that I live in, Tampa. So it's not a huge country, but it's interesting talking to them. And as you'll hear in the interview, hearing about what it's like to start a new country and there's a lot that you have to go, you know, there's a lot of fundraising if you want to call it that, that you have to do. It's it's a lot it's bigger than the business.   Keith Weinhold** ((00:24:37)) - -  You'll learn more about that on an upcoming episode of the show with the nation of Berlin. I attended a presentation called A Forgotten Solution to the Housing Crunch. Most people think of real estate development is either single family homes or multifamily properties. This espoused the building of light touch density of 2 to 4 unit properties, and how that increases the density. But it maintains character. And they showed an awful lot of photos in the presentation where from a street, a four unit building can actually like a single family home when it has the right design and therefore you don't get this NIMBYism pushback.   Keith Weinhold** ((00:25:16)) - -  I saw a number of smart design examples of that. And you know what this does? Will this help keep the cost of housing down in an area? What it allows for in a society is it allows the children who grew up in an area to afford the housing there without being priced out. Also called this multifamily missing middle 2 to 4 unit housing. You don't have the NIMBYism pushback that you do with multifamily housing. There are an awful lot of opinions here about people that want to avoid rent control, about how that's typically the bad policy. And many likened rent control to bombing American cities over time because landlords don't have an incentive to improve anything. So rent control is not a good solution to increasing the housing supply. And a lot of the discussion was how you get politicians to say no to rent control, sharing with them. Cato Institute studies on how the free market really makes for a higher housing supply, because that makes developers want to come into the market. And it was noted in one of the panel discussions about rent control and about providing more affordable housing.   Keith Weinhold** ((00:26:27)) - -  But if there's a four unit building of owners of all four units of that building, how that's deemed as less threatening than if there's a four unit building of renters.   Mark Skousen** ((00:26:38)) - -  So question for you, the housing panels that you attended were these people, were they private investors or they worked for private equity companies? I think maybe a documentary filmmaker who does real estate documentary, what was their background?   Keith Weinhold** ((00:26:50)) - -  Think tanks and yes, a documentary filmmaker of a film called Shabbat Vacation. And I did not get to see the film about the perils and ills of rent control on Shabbat vacation. But I talked with one of the people that worked on the project and basically that movie. It does glorify the landlord that was brought up. And typically in popular culture, you don't glorify the landlord. I mean, the landlord is kind of the beleaguered party in this, and it was critical of rent control there. And so it's helping to spread an awareness of how that really doesn't help the housing supply. Quantity work quality over time. I attended another presentation.   Keith Weinhold** ((00:27:33)) - -  It was called Homelessness California versus Texas and Homelessness. Of course, it's a multifaceted problem. There are a number of reasons that it occurs, but they really brought up that it often results from the loss of family connection a lot more often than what some people think. And it really brought to light that Houston has a lower proportion of homelessness in L.A. and San Francisco does. What are the reason this that that is the case. And that is because Houston has a lower proportion of homelessness, because it's a lower cost to build there, and Houston has way fewer zoning requirements, you see, almost like a hodgepodge of building across Houston. You have substantially less NIMBYism in Houston. You just have a culture there that doesn't push back on buildings. So those are really some of the key parallels between why the homelessness crisis is worse in California than it is in Texas. In most places, Austin actually has policies that are so agricultural to the rest of Texas, giving Austin a somewhat higher homelessness rate.   Mark Skousen** ((00:28:38)) - -  Wow, that's a lot of real estate content that you got there.   Mark Skousen** ((00:28:42)) - -  Anything else? Keith?   Keith Weinhold** ((00:28:44)) - -  Another presentation I attended was called Permanent Rising Prices. What are the best inflation hedges? And, you know, for a while they didn't even put real estate up there as one of them. And I was almost foaming at the mouth getting ready to ask a question. But they did bring in real estate at the end. When it comes to inflation. Many of them brought up the fact that we have multi-trillion dollar deficits even when we're in good times. I had never thought of it that way before. If most people would look at the history of the world and what's happening with the nation while they're running multi-trillion dollar deficits, they probably think that they're trending toward poverty and austerity. But that's not the case. This is what's happening in good times. And politicians, they really don't run on a platform of reducing our debt. You notice that none of the politicians do that. Instead, you see politicians run on platforms like immigration or the housing shortage or abortion. But, you know, politicians, they don't run on a platform of reducing our debt.   Keith Weinhold** ((00:29:42)) - -  And that's because they all see it as a problem that they didn't create, and they don't really want to work their way out of it either. So that's why it doesn't come up. Also, with the best inflation hedges, they showed the rank of asset performance for the last 200 years of five items stocks, bonds, treasury bills, gold and the dollar. And really it was coming down to two guys debating on whether stocks or gold were better. They both made their case either way. And they didn't bring in real estate until the end. But when they brought in real estate, they broad brushstroke and do what so many do, and they just looked at it as an asset class in what is its capital appreciation over time. Yeah. And you know, they didn't separate out income property as its own class like we would. But some of the panelists, they did not like real estate. They talked about how it's not liquid, about how you have to borrow funds, about how there's a maintenance burden and a repair burden with real estate, and you have tenants and management and some things like that.   Mark Skousen** ((00:30:40)) - -  Fair, all fair.   Keith Weinhold** ((00:30:41)) - -  All fair points. And one panelist brought up that gold has outperformed the gold mining stocks just historically over time. So those are some of the inflation hedges and some of the other issues with inflation that you don't think about very much as you have policy advocates and politicians addressing.   Mark Skousen** ((00:30:57)) - -  Well, I'll say gold mining stocks and most traders will tell you traders by gold mining stocks, not investors. So gold mining stocks are meant to be held over the short term. They are not meant to be held over a long period of time like physical tangible gold is. So for people to say, oh yeah, gold outperforms gold stocks over a 30 year period. That's true. But most people are buying gold stocks Like gold mining, stocks are only holding over a short period of time.   Keith Weinhold** ((00:31:29)) - -  Well, housing and inflation were such widespread themes here since it has been such a problem, much of it wrought by the pandemic. As we wind down here summarizing what we've experienced at our first Freedom Fest, for each of us, have any last thoughts with respect to housing and inflation since they were such overarching themes?   Mark Skousen** ((00:31:49)) - -  Well, the common theme here at Freedom Fest was government got out of the way because if you let the free market work itself out, if you let people be, people work themselves out.   Mark Skousen** ((00:32:01)) - -  But the onus on people to take personal responsibility, that in and of itself solves the inflation problem because you don't have government restrictions, government mandates, and And this was a major topic and that was the lockdowns of 2020. The mandatory vaccine mandates of 2021, those were all inflationary because when you have people fired from their jobs or dropping out, quitting their jobs because they didn't want to take this job, that means prices are higher and lower. Workforce means you have to pay the whoever is there higher wages. And that's what ended up happening. So it's not just about dollars and cents. It's something as simple as getting a job caused inflation. And ultimately when inflation goes up, of course that's going to affect rents, that's going to affect housing. There was a major savings rate, which I'm sure you covered in 2020, where people were saving money, being locked down at home. And once things started opening up, that money was spent and that created inflation. And people, as soon as they could get out of their house said, hey, I want to move to Florida, or I want to move to Texas or Utah or where we are here in Nevada.   Mark Skousen** ((00:33:10)) - -  And that's why housing values exploded. So the inflation was caused by government. It wasn't just the government spending. It was actual psychological and physical things that the government or the policies of the government did that created an inflation. The government spending, the low Federal Reserve interest rates are just a piece of the pie, or they're just a couple of pieces to the pie. And so it was interesting to learn that all these other areas, all these other, like I said, policies that the government enacted. And that's what Robert F Kennedy Jr, RFK, talked about in his keynote speech. All of these policies affected the purchasing power of our dollar.   Keith Weinhold** ((00:33:53)) - -  We have all had more dollars chasing fewer goods and services, one of those being housing itself. Hey, it's been great to meet up here in real life at Freedom Fest this year in a race. I appreciate you sharing your thoughts. Thank you Keith. I'm great. Yeah. Narration I enjoying freedom Fest here. Oh, there's such a wide variety of vendors and viewpoints all around this concept of free thinking, typically with getting government out of the way.   Keith Weinhold** ((00:34:29)) - -  In fact, in the exhibit hall, which is right across from where the speaker discussions are, there are booths for gold, real estate, cryptocurrency stocks, a dating app for unvaccinated people, self-directed IRAs, a program for teaching capitalism to school children. There is even a book that espouses biblical capitalist virtues. And then elsewhere in the exhibit hall, atheist virtues. There was also a promoter of a currency called the Nevada Gold Back, and what it is is 1/1000 of an ounce of 24 karat gold. And it is physical like gold back. It looks sort of like a dollar bill, just much, much more in the exhibit hall. Now, one concept that I did not hear any criticism about was Trump tariffs. Tariffs are not free market. In fact, it's akin to erecting a trade wall. And maybe there is a session about it. But there are many sessions going on concurrently and I can't attend them all. And in other sessions I was asked to be a speaker and was interviewed. Like you heard.   Keith Weinhold** ((00:35:45)) - -  Doctor Scholes had mentioned there was a presidential debate here. Now the two major party candidates didn't attend. I watched RFK Jr speak here, an independent candidate, and he was not in the presidential debate, though he spoke separately in the security for RFK Jr was formidable, even though he spoke the day before the Trump shooting. The presidential debate was among three different parties. It was Jill Stein at the Green Party, Randall Terry of the Constitution Party, and Libertarian Party candidate Chase Oliver, who is a particularly bright, articulate guy, and most or all of those candidates, they agree that we should end the Federal Reserve. And the presidential debate, interestingly, was moderated by Congressman Thomas Massie, who has more formally proposed ending the fed outside of the presidential debate. I also attended a different session. It was a Bitcoin debate called Will the Bitcoin bubble ever burst? And you had two guys promoting and talking about the virtues of Bitcoin. And then you had two guys criticizing Bitcoin. And one of the two bitcoin critics was Whole Foods founder John Mackey.   Keith Weinhold** ((00:36:58)) - -  So this really got interesting. Now I like a lot of the benefits of Bitcoin personally, but I must say in this particular debate the Bitcoin critics decide that Maggie was on. Oh they won this. The proponents best points were the people back in the day said electricity in the internet word feasible. They weren't going to last, but electricity and the internet won and Bitcoin will to the pro camp also espouses that Bitcoin is the first time we've had absolute digital scarcity. You cannot copy and paste bitcoin, but yeah, the critics did a better job. They said that Bitcoin is always made future promises, but it falls short like its awful acceptance rate as a currency. Still today its price levels are dreadfully volatile, just miserably volatile. You can't count on it then as a store of value. John Mackey said that Bitcoin produces no goods, no services and no cash flow. The Bitcoin critics also asked more than once this question how has Bitcoin made anyone's life simpler, easier or better? There really weren't any good answers to that question, and they even critiqued that with its fixed supply at 21 million will, then it cannot grow with the economy.   Keith Weinhold** ((00:38:21)) - -  And then what this can do is create deflation and depression. And I would like to adhere myself that each Bitcoin is already divided into 100 million tiny pieces called satoshis. And it might be able to be divided smaller than that eventually. But yeah, the Bitcoin critics won. It is quite a win for bitcoin, in my opinion, that this nascent digital asset that was only worth a few pennies 15 years ago when it came out, I mean, it was something that only cryptographers and digital geeks understood. Well, today you've got presidents discussing bitcoin. So it's certainly had some success just in branding and name recognition alone. That is just about a wrap from Freedom Fest this year here in Las Vegas, there were record breaking temperatures outside in the Mojave Desert in the middle of summer. Inside, it was a celebration of ideals like life, liberty, prosperity, and of course, freedom. Until next week, I'm your host, Keith Wendel. Don't quit your day, dream.   Speaker 6** ((00:39:35)) - -  Nothing on this show should be considered specific, personal or professional advice.   Speaker 6** ((00:39:39)) - -  Please consult an appropriate tax, legal, real estate, financial or business professional for individualized advice. Opinions of guests are their own. Information is not guaranteed. All investment strategies have the potential for profit or loss the host is operating on behalf of yet Rich education LLC exclusively.   Keith Weinhold** ((00:40:03)) - -  The preceding program was brought to you by your home for wealth building. Get rich education.com.

Join our live, virtual event for Memphis BRRRR properties on June 25th. Free. Sign up now at: GREwebinars.com The homeownership rate has fallen due to low affordability. This means that there are more renters. There are still just one-half as many housing units as America needs. But it had been one-quarter. New duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes are vanishing. I describe six reasons why. Two entire US counties now have a median home price of $2M+. Learn where they are. It's better to be an investor than a landlord or flipper. GRE Investment Coach, Naresh, and I discuss how to use a lower down payment to achieve a potential 20% cash-on-cash return with the BRRRR Strategy. Join our live, virtual event for this at: GREwebinars.com. Resources mentioned: Join our live, virtual event for Memphis BRRRR properties on June 25th. Free. Sign up now at: GREwebinars.com For access to properties or free help with a GRE Investment Coach, start here: GREmarketplace.com Get mortgage loans for investment property: RidgeLendingGroup.com or call 855-74-RIDGE  or e-mail: info@RidgeLendingGroup.com Invest with Freedom Family Investments.  You get paid first: Text FAMILY to 66866 For advertising inquiries, visit: GetRichEducation.com/ad Will you please leave a review for the show? I'd be grateful. Search “how to leave an Apple Podcasts review”  GRE Free Investment Coaching: GREmarketplace.com/Coach Best Financial Education: GetRichEducation.com Get our wealth-building newsletter free— text ‘GRE' to 66866 Our YouTube Channel: www.youtube.com/c/GetRichEducation Follow us on Instagram: @getricheducation Keith's personal Instagram: @keithweinhold   Complete episode transcript:   Keith Weinhold (00:00:01) - Welcome to GRE. I'm your host, Keith Weinhold. Hold properties are vanishing, and sadly, they represent some really good property types that are hardly being built anymore. American housing is changing for good. Two entire U.S. counties now have median home values of $2 million or more. You'll learn where those are and learn about a specific real estate investing strategy, where investors are getting especially high yield returns in today's low affordability market. All today on get rich education.   Robert Syslo (00:00:37) - Since 2014, the powerful Get Rich education podcast has created more passive income for people than nearly any other show in the world. This show teaches you how to earn strong returns from passive real estate, investing in the best markets without losing your time being a flipper or landlord. Show host Keith Weinhold writes for both Forbes and Rich Dad Advisors, and delivers a new show every week. Since 2014, there's been millions of listeners downloads and 188 world nations. He has A-list show guests include top selling personal finance author Robert Kiyosaki. Get Rich education can be heard on every podcast platform.   Robert Syslo (00:01:09) - Plus it has its own dedicated Apple and Android listener. Phone apps build wealth on the go with the get Rich education podcast. Sign up now for the get Rich education podcast or visit get Rich education.com.   Corey Coates (00:01:23) - You're listening to the show that has created more financial freedom than nearly any show in the world. This is get rich education.   Keith Weinhold (00:01:39) - What we heard in 188 nations worldwide. I'm your host, Keith Weinhold, and you're listening to get Rich education. Last week, I covered a lot of bad news here as you and I uncovered some real estate problems. Of course, overall, when you're invested in real estate and obtain productive working income for yourself through tenants in their employment, you can almost always play another side of the coin and be profitable because, well, it really comes right back to the fact that real estate pays five ways simultaneously, for example, souring housing affordability. Well, that's bad for homeowners. That's bad news for people that are primarily want to be homeowners and not you. You're an investor. In fact, here's exactly what that means when you're the investor, the homeownership rate has fallen in in the past year.   Keith Weinhold (00:02:38) - It's gone from 66% down to 65.6% due to that low affordability. Okay. Well, that's just a 4/10 of a percent drop in the homeownership rate. And it is poised to fall further. Or what does that 4/10 really mean. Well, that's the proportion of Americans that don't own their homes. So then they have to rent. And this means that there are hundreds of thousands more American renters today than there were just a year ago. And that pushes up rental demand, rental occupancy and the price of rent itself. And that's what you get to capture off from a low affordability problem, which outsiders only think of as bad real estate news, because it is bad news through the lens of that one of your first time homebuyer. Now I want to tell you about the property types that are disappearing. Just vanishing today, and it's the degree to which it's happening that you probably aren't aware of. I'll also tell you why it's personally concerning to me, why this is all going on at all, and I don't even see any reason that it's going to turn around.   Keith Weinhold (00:03:52) - It's probably going to get worse. What's going on is basically that too many builders have thrown their duplex, triplex, and fourplex development plans out the car window like it's an Apple Corps on a summer road trip. They are vanishing. Yes, 2 to 4 unit properties vanishing. In fact, if you're a newsletter subscriber here, you got to see a jarring chart that shows this. And what you'll basically see is that in 2007, the number of 2 to 4 unit properties built just fell off a cliff. It flatlined, and it still hasn't gotten up. The amount constructed now is still just one half to one third of what it had been in pre global financial crisis years. Really they're only closer to a third. All right. So what we're talking about here is only about one third as many duplex triplex and fourplex starts today as there were 20 years ago. And this is sourced by the National Association of Homebuilders. And some call this entire phenomenon M triple M multi families missing middle. And whatever you call this disappearing act.   Keith Weinhold (00:05:10) - Before I get to the reasons for why this is happening, I've got to tell you that this disappearance, it hurts me a little. It's sort of heartfelt because as you know, I began this way with a fourplex that was my first ever property of any kind. You know, the story where I lived in one unit and rented out the other three. It was just an amazing way to start with a bang. Well, now, when we compare this paltry construction, this dearth of. construction today, when we compare that to both smaller property types and larger property types, that being single family homes and five plus unit apartment buildings, will construction of all three of these types fell hard around 2008. But here's the thing. Single family homes and five plus apartment buildings. They got back up around 2010 and they started resuming more building. But duplexes and fourplex, they never did. They never had that happen. The number coming out of the market that just kept flatlining. Those new starts. All right.   Keith Weinhold (00:06:16) - So why exactly is this going on with these vanishing 2 or 3 and four unit property construction types? Why this trend? Well, first, it's NIMBYism, not in my backyard ism primarily of those single family homeowners, because once people are comfy in owning their single family home. Well, then they don't want higher density duplexes in fourplex built in their area. They fear that it can lower their property values. It'll almost certainly increase the traffic around that area. And the second reason is that there simply just been less building overall of most all housing types. And I have discussed this elsewhere, so I won't get into it again. Yes, it is that erstwhile housing supply crash. A third reason for these vanishing 2 to 4 unit properties is the need for zoning reform and the adoption of what's called light touch density. Light touch density. That means a zoning strategy for more dense housing. And what are we up to now for? The fourth reason is that builders, they find more scale efficiencies when they build larger apartments.   Keith Weinhold (00:07:25) - Fifth is limits in international building codes, in international residential codes. And the sixth reason is that this trend began around 2008. These more recent work from home lifestyle starting in 2020. That means that residents can live in single family homes, and they tend to be further from the urban core, rather than 2 to 4 unit properties. And this lifestyle trend right here, that can mean that this disappearing trend for this property type continues. And there you go. They are the six reasons for why. If you were 2 to 4 unit properties are being built today, drastically fewer. And I lament this fact because see duplex the four plex neighborhoods, they can have good walkability where you don't always need a car to get everywhere. And yet at the same time, they still have ample green space. Now, conversely, some fourplex neighborhoods, you know, they can get to look and really junky. Well, they all have different owners. And then there are dumpsters all over the place, like my first fourplex was, and like my second fourplex was as well.   Keith Weinhold (00:08:33) - I really hope that builders become more attracted to the 2 to 4 unit space. See, with giant large apartment complexes, say 300 units. Well, the builder has to wait until the construction of all of those 300 units are done until they can start filling it with rent paying tenants. So therefore builders have to wait longer to start getting that rent income. But instead, construction of this missing middle housing that can be broken into phases. And that way units can be open when they're completed. And that provides early rent revenue to the builder and 2 to 4 unit properties. I mean, they really are an investor sweet spot, but due to builder and lifestyle trends like I'm describing, fewer are being built new. But please remember there were many missing middle properties built decades ago and they can still make good investment properties into the future. In fact, the first two fourplex that I bought were both built in the mid 80s, so there's still plenty that are already out there. The takeaway here for you is that you're going to be seeing fewer new ones, and that means that duplexes to fourplex is now take up a smaller proportion of America's housing stock, and that portion is positioned to become smaller and smaller going forward.   Keith Weinhold (00:09:56) - So it's not that death of these properties. We even have home builders at Gray Marketplace right now with new build 2 to 4 plex. So it isn't their death, but they are dying, waning in number. Now, Jerry recently got Ahold of some jaw dropping info here. I my gosh, now remember a few years ago, maybe even ten or more years ago when you probably heard something like certain small towns in California, Silicon Valley. They now had median priced homes that hit the million dollar mark. And you know, when you first heard that, you might have thought, oh, wow, it's not just neighborhoods, but entire towns in aggregate have hit the million dollar mark in some high priced American places. Well, then get ready for this. As housing affordability makes headlines in California in its wealthiest cities, continue to fight building more housing. We have two Bay area counties, not towns, but entire counties that have hit a milestone. The median price for sold homes there has climbed to $2 million or more.   Keith Weinhold (00:11:15) - We're not just talking 1 million anymore, and we're not just talking about one upper crust town, but two entire California counties now have median home prices of $2 million or more. And notice these are not asking prices. No speculation here. These are the values, the amounts that they have actually sold for. And this is according to a recent California Association of Realtors report. Median homes are now $2 million plus in which two Bay area counties, you might wonder? Well, first, Santa Clara County, which includes San Jose, they notched an even $2 million back in April. And yes, this is more than San Francisco County's $1.8 million. And the second county, it spirals even higher than that. The second California county, with median home prices of 2 million plus is San Mateo County. It's basically a county that lies between San Francisco and San Jose. And that's where the median home price sold for in San Mateo County, California, $2.17 million. Not just one upper crust town, but an entire county.   Keith Weinhold (00:12:38) - Not just $1 million, not even $2 million anymore, but $2.17 million. And this is not for a fancy, lavish home. This is just the median priced home in the middle and San Mateo County that is home to the nation's most expensive zip code, by the way. Atherton, California, where the median home price tops the charts nationally at $7.1 million. That's that is according to Compass Real Estate. And if that's not enough, homes are still flying off the shelves there. They're days on market is now at the lowest since 2022. And though all this sounds pretty astonishing right now, you know what? If you are listening to this episode ten years from now, well into the 2030s, you might think these were the good old days here. How quaint. Because over the next ten years, we all expect more inflation, and we've still got more housing shortage years between now and say, ten years into the future. And of course, here at URI, we don't tend to focus on the high priced markets, which tend to be on the coasts, things like this.   Keith Weinhold (00:13:55) - Really, it's just a harbinger of what's to come to more parts of the nation later on. What we do here is we help you win in real estate without being a landlord and without being a flipper. As a savvy investor that tends to buy either new or fixed up properties and might have a manager manage them for you, hands off is the place to be. Hands off is being an investor, and you get the best tax advantages this way to when your hands off and you know something. Some people that get into real estate investing, they think that they have to be a flipper, or that they have to be a landlord in order to make it profitable. Now, there's nothing wrong with those two disciplines. So much flipping or landlord. I was a landlord for a little while on my own properties. Most of my investment career. I use a property manager and I never flipped. It's just that these things flipping and landlord, they're not any sort of prerequisite to you being a successful investor. You can shortcut all of that with turnkey real estate investing or like with a different strategy that we're going to talk about later today.   Keith Weinhold (00:15:04) - What most people really want is the financial freedom that real estate investing brings. But in order to get there, it's often not the route that you think it is. It's typically not flipping or landlords. And, you know, really it's this way with a lot of things. For example, say that you want to own in ice cream business. Well, most people think that they have to start their own ice cream business from scratch. And like you need to find a space and you need to buy all the equipment and develop systems and go through the excruciating process of hiring all of your staff. No, a lot of times you can shortcut all of that by not starting your own ice cream business, but instead studying, vetting, and buying an existing ice cream business without having to start your own from scratch. Be strategic, study a little, shortcut the process and get in where it's profitable. You want the benefit of owning real estate without having to use a nail gun yourself, or being a manager where you're 25 tenants can text you.   Keith Weinhold (00:16:17) - What kind of life are you building for yourself? Then you want the benefit of owning an ice cream business. The way to get to the end goal. The path there is often different than you think. And here's another example that I can relate to, but I think that you will too. Do you have a favorite real estate? Influencer out there and they think about starting a podcast. Well, I personally know three real estate podcasters out there that have all quit. They produce some episodes and all three quit doing their podcast. And these are just among people I know and just real estate thought leaders. Just that space and all. Recent hosting your own podcast platform is a ton of work from. You need to have a huge bank of your own original content, to having the ability to book big name guests and then making sure they're prepared to. Making sure you have the right marketing team so that a podcast actually reaches the right people. It is work, work, work, and seemingly no one in this world knows that better than me.   Keith Weinhold (00:17:21) - With 500 plus episodes reliably released every single week since 2014, and we don't replay old shows either, there is nothing passive about this. There are so many shows today that if your favorite real estate influencer starts one, they're going to be competing with a lot that are already out there. I mean, anymore, even celebrities that start podcasts, they usually don't get any substantial reach or traction. All these people that start and quit their podcasts, they were too slow to realize that actually they didn't want to host a podcast. What they really wanted is for their voice to be heard. Well, the way to shortcut that, like with turnkey real estate investing or with buying an existing ice cream business, is that that influencer should have developed a strategy for being a guest on other shows that are already popular and established, probably by hiring an experienced and connected booking agent. That way, you've outsourced all of that marketing and research activity to another show that already did that for you. So the point is, be clear on getting what you want.   Keith Weinhold (00:18:34) - What is the goal that you want first, it's probably a large real estate portfolio built for leverage and income, and then work your way back to try to find the most efficient route to get there. And there are often shorter paths to get there than what you first thought. Now, when we talk about where are the best real estate deals today, you have to look harder than you did, say, 8 to 10 years ago. Coming up shortly, you'll have the pleasure of hearing an in-house chat with I in one of Gre's own investment coaches. We're going to talk about a strategy that specific and proven but underutilized in order to recapture those higher cash on cash returns like you could have gotten back in, say, 2015 and 2016. And for a time, I had been talking about how Newbuild properties and their builder interest rate buy downs, that they're really the place to be. And that's still true, but not to the extent that it was just a year ago, because today some builders, they're not paying down your interest rate for you as much as they did last year.   Keith Weinhold (00:19:39) - They're asking you to pay more toward it. Now. A few minutes ago, I told you about America's vanishing duplexes to fourplex. And if you're one of our newsletter readers, you got to see a jarring chart or two that demonstrates exactly what I was talking about there. And also in our newsletter, I show you great maps, real estate maps that beautifully demonstrate housing market trends and where the opportunities are for you. Also, in a recent letter, I showed you exactly where I'm getting 8% interest paid to me and what's basically a savings account. If you don't already subscribe, it is free. Our email letter is called the Don't Quit Your Day Dream letter. It's concise, valuable info that's just good, clean content that I put directly into your hands. It is easier to use than a website. Today's websites have paywalls and cookies, disclaimers or pop up ads. This is just the good stuff directly from me, straight to you. And you can get the letter now at get Rich education com slash letter that's get rich education com slash letter.   Keith Weinhold (00:20:50) - In a world of AI and bots, I actually write every word of the don't quit your daydream letter myself, just like I have from day one. And another easy way to start the free letter is text gray to 66866. Just do it right now while it's on your mind. Text gray to 6686616. I'm Keith Reinhold. You're listening to get Rich education. Your bank is getting rich off of you. The national average bank account pays less than 1% on your savings. If your money isn't making 4%, you're losing your hard earned cash to inflation. Let the liquidity fund help you put your money to work with minimum risk. Your cash generates up to an 8% return with compound interest year in and year out. Instead of earning less than 1% sitting in your bank account, the minimum investment is just 25 K. You keep getting paid until you decide you want your money back there. Decade plus track record proves they've always paid their investors 100% in full and on time. And I would know, because I'm an investor, to earn 8%.   Keith Weinhold (00:22:02) - Hundreds of others are text family 266866. Learn more about Freedom Family Investments Liquidity Fund on your journey to financial freedom through passive income. Text family to 66866. Role under the specific expert with income property, you need Ridge lending group and MLS for 2056 injury history from beginners to veterans. They provided our listeners with more mortgages than anyone. It's where I get my own loans for single family rentals up to four Plex's. Start your prequalification and chat with President Charlie Ridge. Personally, they'll even customize a plan tailored to you for growing your portfolio. Start at Ridge Lending group.com Ridge lending group.com. This is peak prosperity.   Robert Syslo (00:23:00) - Chris Martinson, listen to get Rich education with Keith Arnold and don't quit your daydream.   Keith Weinhold (00:23:15) - Hey, would like to welcome in Gray's extraordinary investment coach. He's booksmart because he's got his MBA. He street smart because he's an active direct real estate investor, just like I am. Before joining gray back in 2021, he worked for financial publishing companies and in the banking sector, too and elsewhere. And today is an investment coach here.   Keith Weinhold (00:23:36) - He helps beginning real estate investors understand the process of acquiring rental property, and he helps veteran investors optimize their strategies to save on taxes and more. Hey, it's terrific to welcome back Naresh Vizard. Thanks a lot Keith. It's been a while, but I'm looking forward to talking real estate before we're done. Today, we're going to tell you about an upcoming live GRE virtual event, where you learn how to get 20 to 25% of immediate built in equity through real estate. And before we do the race, let's talk about what's really going on. Besides giving GRE devotees free education and guidance like you do, you also help them find the best deals on income properties nationwide and for a time, brand new build to rent properties they look good in. Many still do with a lot of rate buy downs into the fives and even the fours on those new build properties. But this year, I learned that builders aren't contributing to buying down the race for the investor like they had last year, and that the onus seems to be more on the investor to buy the rate down with some of these builders.   Keith Weinhold (00:24:44) - So tell us more about what's happening in America's build to rent sector. Well, Keith, build to rent. For those who don't know, it's been around here at GRA. Bill to rent asset classes, build to rent real estate. But it's the concept of builders building real estate properties with the intention of selling them to investors so they can rent it out. So right now I live in a house that was built, and I bought it because the builder intended for somebody to buy it and live in it. That's not built to rent. Build to rent is the idea of.   Naresh Vissa (00:25:16) - Specifically selling it to investors like our listeners, like our loyal followers who live out of state and who want to rent the properties out to tenants. Now, Build to Rent was very hot and it's still popular. I don't want to call it hot, but it's still popular for those who want new construction properties. However, the rehabs are making a furious comeback because there was about a four year period from 2019 to 23 or so where you just couldn't find good cash flowing rehabs.   Naresh Vissa (00:25:50) - Right. And when I say rehabs, I mean these older properties that were built 50 years ago, maybe as long as 120 years ago there we have some properties in our inventory that were built in the late 1800s, and they've just kept being rehabbed and rehabbed and renovated. Buildings are making a furious comeback because they're cash flowing better. Previously, they were just cash flowing marginally better than new construction built to rent properties. Now, especially with a strategy called ver, which we'll talk about some more, you can have the opportunity to get cash on cash returns back to what you remember in 2016, 2015 where we're talking 15, 16% cash on cash returns. I mean, some of our BR clients or listeners who ended up buying BRS, they're doing 2021 all the way up to 30% cash on cash returns. So BR simply means buy, rehab, rent, refinance, repeat the cycle. So that's B followed by for Rs b r r r r buy, rehab, rent, refinance. Repeat the process again.   Naresh Vissa (00:27:10) - And it's during that refinance where investors are getting a good chunk of their down payment back. Because what happens in that refinance is after you rehab it and you read it, you rent it out at the target rent, which almost all of these are renting out at very aggressive high target rents. When you refinance it, the property appraises at a value that's much, much greater post rehab than when you initially bought it. And that's where you get essentially your money back. You can choose to keep it in with the mortgage company so you have more equity in the property, or you can take the cash back and use it to buy more BR properties. It's become a very popular. Form of real estate investing. People think when they hear this. Well, it sounds like flipping, right. This is not flipping. Flipping is kind of like day trading. You're looking to make a quick buck, whereas in this case you're not selling the property. You're keeping the property with the intention of renting it out and collecting the cash flow from your tenant.   Naresh Vissa (00:28:19) - So that's in a nutshell, what BRR is. And we are having a live event on Tuesday, June 25th at 8:30 p.m. Eastern Time. That's Tuesday, June 25th at 8:30 p.m. eastern. Time to talk about and go over this BR process. The bird key process or listeners are familiar with turnkey. Well we have BR key which is similar except it's using the BR method. And Keith, you probably know this and you've talked about it a little bit on your podcast. BR has become the most popular strategy that our investors are utilizing this year, 2024.   Keith Weinhold (00:29:01) - Yeah. Now back to the build to render the new build properties is attractive as they can be because they attract a certain quality of tannin and they're not going to have any maintenance or repair issues, most likely for quite a while. The thing with those is, oh, you might pay 300 K or more for a new build. Single family home in the builder rent style with 20% down payment, 5% for closing costs, you're out of pocket. 75 K.   Keith Weinhold (00:29:30) - One reason that this has become the most popular strategy for gray followers we're talking about here. The BR strategy is that you could come out of pocket with a lot less to begin with.   Naresh Vissa (00:29:42) - That's number one. Number one is we have some GRE followers who went into this Berkey and they put no money down. They got lucky. They initially bought the property, and the property appraised so much that they got their money back and their down payment was actually zero. They didn't make money on it, but what they allocated, what they thought that they would allocate 25% down, they ended up using that money since they got it back to buy a second property and then a third property and then a fourth party. We have one guy who bought six properties, all birds, because he didn't get I don't want to say, look, we're not making promises that you're going to put 0% down. That's not the promises that we're making. The worst case scenario is that you put 25% down and that's your standard real estate investment.   Naresh Vissa (00:30:27) - But there is a chance that you could put 15% down or 10% down if the rehab turns out really well. And if you get a good appraiser, there's a chance it can happen. But the goal here, again, is not to make a quick buck or to house hack. We're not taking shortcuts here. The goal here is simply to buy a property renovated or rehab it and drive up the rent price, drive up the value of the property, put a good tenant in there and call it a day. Collect those cash flows. Now I do want to say a few things about that process. So like I said, the first thing that you do is you buy. So first you buy, then you rehab. You do not have to do we call it Berkey because everything is done for you. So when people hear this, they're like, oh, this sounds like I live in Florida. I don't want to go to Memphis. And by the way, this specific market is in Memphis, Tennessee that we're focusing on.   Naresh Vissa (00:31:26) - We have burrs in Baltimore, Maryland and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. But we've identified Memphis as not just the hottest, but it just makes the most sense numbers wise. And so I want to go back to the point of, hey, you don't have to physically go or even go on Google and find handymen or rehab ers to do this for you, our Berkey provider. The best part is they do it all for you. It's completely taken care of. You literally just sign some papers. Once you decide that you like a property and the specs of the property, you sign some papers. They take care of it. The rehab takes about 90 days. Then from rehab to closing, it takes another 40 days or so. And then from closing to someone signing a lease that takes another 30 days to find somebody, stick them in there and takes another 30 days after that for the tenant to move in. So overall, this process can actually take just for one property. You can take six months.   Keith Weinhold (00:32:26) - Now. Naresh has touched on it somewhat. One conventional problem with the Burr strategy by rehab rent, refinance, repeat is that first are the rehab because it involves vetting and managing contractors, which is a real nightmare for many. So instead, we're talking about tapping into a system with a proven team of contractors and lenders and project managers to make it easy. It's known as Berkey, and it's in profitable Memphis.   Naresh Vissa (00:32:54) - Profitable Memphis. And I'll say this about Memphis, we're going to talk. Way more about this on the webinar. Highly recommend people go to GRI webinars. Com gri webinars.com. You can sign up for the webinar there. It's actually live. So this is not like something that you just can show up to whenever you want. It's a live event on Tuesday, June 25th at 8:30 p.m. Eastern Time. That's Tuesday, June 25th at 8:30 p.m. Eastern Time. Great webinars.com is how you can register. And like you said, we could have focused on Baltimore, Maryland or Pittsburgh. Memphis has really and I myself by the way, own five properties and four in Memphis proper.   Naresh Vissa (00:33:42) - And one is in the Memphis area and Mississippi, a suburb of of Memphis. And this I don't want to call it a town, because Memphis used to be one of the most popular towns in the south back in the day. But this city has really come up as a result of pandemic, of population growth, of even inflation. We've seen rents go up, we've seen the population go up. Memphis is not what you think of from eight years ago. Seven years ago when I first bought my properties. I'll admit, when I bought my first property seven years ago in Memphis, I had a lot of problems with tenants. I had a lot of problems with the city. I didn't like what I was reading about the police department, just all sorts of things. Not the police department, just crime in general. And Memphis has really turned itself around. Not completely turned itself around, but it's gotten better. And we're seeing it just on the investment side because that's where we're seeing appreciation growth. My personal properties, they're up since 2020, since January 2020, I was when I closed all my last Memphis property.   Naresh Vissa (00:34:49) - They're all up at least 50% in value. So it's a market that's still appreciating. But the most important thing because we are cash flow investors, not necessarily appreciation investors. It's great to get the appreciation, but the rents keep going up. And I actually today I've talked to a Berkey client, great loyal Jerry listener and follower who ended up buying three properties, and she's on her fourth one, or about to do a fourth one with this Memphis market provider. And when she told me her rents, I was blown away at how much these properties were renting for before the rehab. So it's not just the appreciation again, that goes up after the rehab, how much they were renting for before the rehab. We're talking less than $800 a month and post rehab. Her rents went up by nearly 50%, about 45% on average. House rehab is like three bedroom, one and a half bathroom. Homes initially she bought them. This is how a lot of the properties are. They only had two bedrooms and they converted one of the spaces.   Naresh Vissa (00:36:05) - The rehab were converted at no extra. You know, it's all inclusive of the rehab charges. They were able to find space in a lot of these properties that were two bedrooms to create a third bedroom and turn them into three bedroom properties instead of two bedroom properties, which also improves the value of the home. And you can get another body in there and increase the rent. So, Jerry, listeners have been really, really happy with this burpee process because at the end of the day, you really do get more bang for your buck. Yes, new construction overall. It's just safer. We have tons of great new construction providers, especially in Florida, whom we recommend, but this is an alternative for those people who don't have $100,000 sitting in the bank ready to invest in a new construction, single family, or a new construction duplex. The Berkey, I mean, really all you need is about 20, $25,000 to do it. And like I said, if you get lucky, you could get a decent portion of that back after the rehab.   Keith Weinhold (00:37:08) - Well, you bring up so many good points there in the race. For one thing, with real estate, you can intentionally improve the value. That's something that you cannot do if you own a stock or if you own cryptocurrency, or if you own gold, you can help control what your investment is worth. And a lot of that happens here in the rehab process. Well, the race would love to tell you more, including walking you through an example with numbers, but that's the best place for him to do it. That is on the live event next week because it is co-hosted by narration. You can join the live virtual event from the comfort of your own home. You can ask questions and have them answered in real time. It is all free and we'll also be sharing special off market Berkey inventory. In Memphis for two, three and four bedroom properties, so go ahead and attend on June 25th. Which again is next Tuesday. Be sure to register now at GR webinars.com. Just been great to walk through the Berkey.   Keith Weinhold (00:38:12) - Thanks so much for coming back on the show.   Naresh Vissa (00:38:14) - Thank you. It's been a pleasure.   Keith Weinhold (00:38:21) - Oh good info from Gree investment coach Naresh as always. Next week's live event. That could be a bigger deal than the Paris Olympics this summer and this year's presidential election combined. Oh yes. Well, at least it expects to be more profitable for you than those other events. It will also be more entertaining when you join as an attendee live next week. Certainly more entertaining and informative than Olympic handball and Olympic race walking, no doubt about that. I don't think I've offended any race walking fans because there are only perhaps five in the world. In any case, BR is a process by which, after you buy months later, you can expect to refinance at a higher valuation since the property has been rehabbed from your initial purchase, and then you get a big chunk of your own down payment back, meaning you have less invested in the deal. And that's why you get a higher cash on cash return. Because cash and cash return all that is, is your annual cash flow divided by your initial investment or your starting equity position.   Keith Weinhold (00:39:37) - The last R in BR is repeat. You can repeat sooner because you did get some of your invested cash back. And that's part of what makes the strategy so effective. Now is part of your refi. You might get a post appraisal rehab that's so high you essentially get all of your down payment money returned to you, at which point it would be an infinite return because you don't have anything invested in the deal. But you should not count on having all of it returned, just a lot of it or most of it. Next week's live event is where the BR real estate investing strategy gets introduced to a wider swath of America one last time. Attend live next Tuesday. The 25th. I really encourage you to check it out. Be sure to sign up for the virtual GRE live event now! It's pretty quick and easy to do at GR webinars.com. Until next week, I'm your host, Keith Weintraub. Don't quit your day dream.   Speaker 5 (00:40:41) - Nothing on this show should be considered specific, personal or professional advice.   Speaker 5 (00:40:45) - Please consult an appropriate tax, legal, real estate, financial or business professional for individualized advice. Opinions of guests are their own. Information is not guaranteed. All investment strategies have the potential for profit or loss. The host is operating on behalf of yet Rich education LLC exclusively.   Robert Syslo (00:41:09) - The preceding program was brought.   Keith Weinhold (00:41:10) - To you by your home for wealth building. Get Rich Education.com.

It's part 2 of our conversation with Sean O'Toole as we talk about the evolving real estate market. Also, don't miss our interactive Zoom meetings with tax expert and Rich Dad Author Tom Wheelwright this second Wednesday of the month. Register at https://www.jasonhartman.com/Wednesday for valuable insights and personalized Q&A sessions. Jason Hartman and Sean O'Toole finish their talk as they discuss the impact of housing inventory levels and credit card debt, noting the importance of adjusting these figures for population growth. O'Toole highlights California's housing crisis, where strict building regulations and NIMBYism hinder affordable housing development. He points out that while modern homes are sturdier, the costs have skyrocketed, making new affordable housing virtually "illegal." O'Toole also explains the shift in the real estate market, where wholesalers are increasingly selling properties directly to consumers rather than investors due to inventory shortages, affecting traditional investment strategies. https://www.propertyradar.com/ #RealEstate #HousingMarket #InventoryCrisis #HomePrices #AffordableHousing #HousingShortage #BuildingCodes #CaliforniaHousing #ForeclosureCrisis #RealEstateInvestment #HomeConstruction #HousingPolicy #MarketTrends #RealEstateTips #InvestmentProperties Key Takeaways: Jason's editorial 1:31 Welcome to part 2 1:57 Join the Empowered Investor Zoom this second Wednesday of the month, and every month Interview with Sean O'Toole 3:22 Gen X vs. Millennials  4:24 Affordable housing, inventory levels and the population 8:06 Cars, entry level housing and ADU's 9:41 Wholesalers 13:32 Wholesaling and the lack of inventory 14:34 Foreclosures and living in a "Crisis Cycle Economy" 22:39 Blog Post: Analyzing the Nitty-Gritty Differences Selling Land vs. Selling a Home   Follow Jason on TWITTER, INSTAGRAM & LINKEDIN Twitter.com/JasonHartmanROI Instagram.com/jasonhartman1/ Linkedin.com/in/jasonhartmaninvestor/ Call our Investment Counselors at: 1-800-HARTMAN (US) or visit: https://www.jasonhartman.com/ Free Class:  Easily get up to $250,000 in funding for real estate, business or anything else: http://JasonHartman.com/Fund CYA Protect Your Assets, Save Taxes & Estate Planning: http://JasonHartman.com/Protect Get wholesale real estate deals for investment or build a great business – Free Course: https://www.jasonhartman.com/deals Special Offer from Ron LeGrand: https://JasonHartman.com/Ron Free Mini-Book on Pandemic Investing: https://www.PandemicInvesting.com