Bernie Sanders
Was reading his page just to see some details on his housing for all policy. It said something about putting more money into developing affordable housing. 

Does this represent an opportunity for developers if he's elected?

(NOT A POLITICAL POST MEANT TO ENCOURAGE ARGUMENT. STAY ON TOPIC.)
[{"id": "fgqqllo", "text": "Too early to say.  Let us hope it is good for most people on the bottom of the pyramid", "replies": [{"id": "fgr4kj1", "text": "&gt; Let us hope it is good for most people on the bottom of the pyramid\n\nHe supports national rent control, it will be awful for most on the bottom of the pyramid (as well as everyone else).", "replies": [{"id": "fgsg21f", "text": "I have not read that he supports rent control at all.  Rent control is a disaster everywhere I have seen it implemented.  And as a landlord, I would be wary unless there is a property tax and utility price control in conjunction with all of that.", "replies": [], "depth": 3}], "depth": 2}], "depth": 1}, {"id": "fgqqu5p", "text": "It's not really worth thinking about until he gets elected and Congress drafts an actual bill. It's unlikely he'll win and even more unlikely that anything will happen. Politicians promise everything during the campaign. The reality is that there's only so much that can be done in one term.", "replies": [{"id": "fgr1rq0", "text": "All such initiatives require the branches of government to agree and pass budgets for these massive programs.\n\nIt is statistically unlikely that anything is ever done, let alone a specific initiative this far out from the first potential term.", "replies": [{"id": "fgrekx3", "text": "Not really.  HUD falls under the executive branch. Pres can change priorities as needed.", "replies": [{"id": "fgsaid7", "text": "They don't currently have this kind of money on hand -- it will require massive new budget allocations.\n\nAnd it is doubtful the candidate in question is going to cut any other HUD program to steer money towards this. \n\n It will require new, additional money allocated in a new bi-partisan budget.", "replies": [], "depth": 4}], "depth": 3}], "depth": 2}], "depth": 1}, {"id": "fgqsg46", "text": "Here's the policy in question: \n\nhttps://berniesanders.com/issues/housing-all/\n\nHe has to get nominated, then elected, then convince enough congressmen and senators to pass a watered down version, then get his cabinet secretaries to implement the law.  The end result will look very different, even if he wins and the Democrats win the senate and keep the house.\n\nOne thing is for certain, if he wins he's going to throw a shitload of money at government housing construction &amp; maintenance as well as expanding section 8.  Both parties like to spend money and section 8 could maybe be done through execute action alone.\n\nThe biggest beneficiaries (besides renters) will be construction firms.  Maybe also owners of quickly-developable(?) land in urban and suburban areas.", "replies": [{"id": "fgr0gih", "text": "Sounds like opportunity zone stuff.", "replies": [], "depth": 2}], "depth": 1}, {"id": "fgquyiv", "text": "I imagine that many shovel ready type construction company would benefit but we already have every program already in place just not on a national level at the scale he is talking about. \n\nHas anyone ever been to section 8 housing or Rent control areas? It\u2019s not exactly the kinda place you\u2019re going to just take a stroll down the sidewalk skipping and whistling. \n\nDevelopers and home builders would probably be the biggest beneficiaries but I don\u2019t think the actual renters/owners are going to see much change.", "replies": [{"id": "fgrjci4", "text": "Lookup Greenbelt Towns.  (Here\u2019s a link: https://livingnewdeal.org/tag/greenbelt-towns/)\n\nIt was a federal program that created whole towns with affordable housing as a part of the New Deal. They are nothing like section 8 housing. I don\u2019t think there\u2019s anything wrong with the government getting into developing real estate that developers are not willing to invest in because the margins aren\u2019t as high as they\u2019d like them to be. I would assume contractors would be interested in the stability of having the government as a customer, but I\u2019m not a contractor.", "replies": [], "depth": 2}, {"id": "fgrmpe4", "text": "Developers and builders can get a lot more money for places that charge higher rent. Don\u2019t see it as a huge opportunity", "replies": [], "depth": 2}], "depth": 1}, {"id": "fgr3s7y", "text": "Opportunity in the short term.  Then, as boomers start dying, we'll see a massive oversupply of housing.\n\nGet your hooks in early, and only invest in undervalued areas if you don't have big biy capital behind you.", "replies": [{"id": "fgr4556", "text": "Well don't forget there are more millennials than boomers", "replies": [], "depth": 2}], "depth": 1}, {"id": "fgr4wwp", "text": "If you already have the right connections to land government contracts, you may do very well.   \n  \nA lot of money in this area tends to go to connected firms today.   I don't see that changing, so for outsiders to jump in on the opportunity is doubtful.   \n  \nThe opportunity I see is rent control arbitrage.    Many landlords will start to lose their properties as they crash in value (like we are seeing in NYC after their rent control).   You may be able to pickup properties far below long term market value, and sit on them until politics changes.  \n  \nIt takes a very strong stomach to hold a rent control unit long term, given it requires disinvestment in maintenance to break even.   But it could eventually pay off.", "replies": [], "depth": 1}, {"id": "fgr6evc", "text": "There are section 8 developers, but I am not familiar with their margins. They get to use special bond financing that may improve their development fees.", "replies": [], "depth": 1}, {"id": "fgr6px0", "text": "possibly, but traditionally government-run developments bring in little profit for developers", "replies": [], "depth": 1}, {"id": "fgrabqh", "text": "There is a huge demand for affordable housing right now. I'm still not clear on what market forces prevent developers from filling that demand. In the Dallas market they keep building more and more luxury apartments that they can't even lease up to stable numbers. But they keep building Luxury that no one wants.", "replies": [{"id": "fgragk3", "text": "Yea I'm here in Dallas too. It's bad. And they dont want to develop in areas that have lower incomes because they say they won't make any money (Below I30)", "replies": [], "depth": 2}, {"id": "fgrgaue", "text": "&gt; There is a huge demand for affordable housing right now. I'm still not clear on what market forces prevent developers from filling that demand.  \n  \nCost of construction.   Market could never build housing for anything below middle class.   Older housing is what becomes more affordable.  \n  \nBut in most large US cities today, a combination of zoning, inclusionary zoning, building code overlays, and parking minimums mean that even middle class housing is impossible to build.", "replies": [{"id": "fgrk8mk", "text": "Policies can change to make luxury units more expensive to build or sell. Then developers could focus on building affordable units profitably or get out of the business of developing property.", "replies": [{"id": "fgrkrmm", "text": "&gt;  Then developers could focus on building affordable units profitably or get out of the business of developing property.\n\nThat's exactly what happened in San Francisco.   Which has lead to acute housing shortages, mass homelessness, and the highest rents in the US.   Developers stopping developing housing in San Francisco has been a disaster for the middle class and poor.   For everyone other than the ultra wealthy.  \n  \nWhy would you want to inflict that on any other part of the country?   Locking every new resident out of a city other than the ultra rich is so unethical, yet that's the policy you would propose?    Middle class and poor people deserve housing too.", "replies": [{"id": "fgrl6n3", "text": "I partly agree with your argument, but San Francisco has several issues that have led to the housing shortages, such as zoning. If the zoning issues were resolved to increase density, there would still not be a guarantee that developers would focus on building affordable units.\n\nI think it would be better for the federal, or state, government to just start purchasing property, developing property, and offering affordable housing itself.", "replies": [], "depth": 5}], "depth": 4}], "depth": 3}], "depth": 2}, {"id": "fgrh7am", "text": "Oftentimes when developers are only building luxury housing, it\u2019s because the cost to build is too high unless it\u2019s for units that are going to yield a large return (luxury units). Or it\u2019s because rent control is in place, putting market rates much higher than they would be otherwise to the point that they are at luxury housing rates.", "replies": [], "depth": 2}], "depth": 1}, {"id": "fgrefqx", "text": "http://apps.urban.org/features/cost-of-affordable-housing/  \n\nFeel free to thank me. Me being smugggggg.", "replies": [], "depth": 1}, {"id": "fgrgk52", "text": "Rent control creates a housing shortage and pretty sure this is in part because developers are less incentivized to develop. Maybe someone can correct me if I\u2019m wrong", "replies": [{"id": "fgszroz", "text": "You arent wrong, its hard to build housing that is both cheap to rent and up to building codes so people just build luxury instead which is generally not constrained by rent control and has a higher ROI. Adding zoning restrictions on top makes it even harder to build and you end up being unable to meet housing deman", "replies": [], "depth": 2}], "depth": 1}, {"id": "fgrj9p6", "text": "Affordable housing development is a big business, but approval, etc. can be very bureaucratic. One advantage over market-rate multifamily is that you can get financing with a much thinner balance sheet as a sponsor. [Here is an example of how a LIHTC investment works.](https://www.vacdc.org/files/2015/07/LIHTC-Info-Graphic-Final.png)\n\nIt's worth noting that tax credit investors often pay **more** than the sum of the 10 years of credits, rather than a discounted amount in cities like NYC. Developers also typically get to pay themselves a 4% development fee, which further enhances their returns. It can be extremely lucrative for developers that are able to build up a strong pipeline of properties.\n\nMany of these affordable communities are not Section 8 / public assistance driven, but rather limited to 60-80% of AMI. [These are often  working class families.](https://streeteasy.com/blog/area-median-income-nyc/) \n\nI personally think it would be challenging to speed up municipal/state bureaucracy and NIMBYism from a federal level, but more funding would certainly be a boost regardless.", "replies": [{"id": "fgrknhv", "text": "This is partly the reason why I'm interested in it. I think Stephen Ross started this way.", "replies": [], "depth": 2}], "depth": 1}]