Think of how much lower monthly payments would be on a 70 year mortgage.

If someone would be brave enough to push terms out over 100 years, we could open up affordable housing for nearly every American!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5795050&forum_id=2)#49413033)

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/115515420947464459

another successful money grab for jews under a kike president, mazel tov to avi and moishe

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5795050&forum_id=2)#49413037)

It's how things used to work in the Mother Country. We should bring it back (along with a monarchy).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5795050&forum_id=2)#49413086)

30 years: $3,160 payment, $1,137,600 total paid

50 years: $2,855 payment, $1,713,00 total paid

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5795050&forum_id=2)#49413059)

this puts upward pressure on prices and benefits existing asset holders, and it steepens the amortization curve to benefit the banks. it does nothing to solve the actual problem with the housing market, which is low supply, it just benefits trump's boomer and jew base at the expense of everyone else.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5795050&forum_id=2)#49413076)

So why do we need this?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5795050&forum_id=2)#49413093)

https://www.housingwire.com/articles/fannie-mae-credit-score-update/

Lol, another Jewish gimme

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5795050&forum_id=2)#49413394)

If we are lowering monthly payments by extending the term of the loans, won’t home prices just go up because borrowers can just borrow more money at the same monthly payment?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5795050&forum_id=2)#49413406)

You'll never succeed in public office with this mindset, bro.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5795050&forum_id=2)#49413451)

I think the 2 fixes to the housing market would be:

1. Require all lenders including securitizations to allow people to transfer their loan terms. So if you have a $500,000 loan at 3% and go to buy a $1 mm house, you can still use that $500,000 loan at 3% as long as you pay the fees to subsitute the new property into the mortgage.

2. Just lower fucking mortgage loans to 5.0%. The government has their hands enough already in this market not sure why they can't just dictate that.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5795050&forum_id=2)#49414389)

Yes, banks will absolutely continue to lend money at 5% to homeowners who might default when they could just buy 30-year Treasuries and get the same return risk-free. If you fix mortgage rates to 5%, the entire housing market will freeze up because banks will never lend money again.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5795050&forum_id=2)#49414452)

And I haven't even gotten into the other reasons this idea is absolutely idiotic. If you let anyone borrow unlimited amounts of money at 5% to buy real estate, you will have every investor in the country buying second homes and rental properties. And if they aren't earning money on these investments, they know that they can just walk away and let the taxpayers bail them out. If you want to make the housing crisis about 100 times worse than it is already, then let the government fix mortgage rates at 5%.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5795050&forum_id=2)#49414622)

You honestly think that the fed can meet and just pronounce that mortgage rates are going up or down a quarter point, but they couldn't find a mechanism to hold mortgage rates at 5%?

And obviously you wouldn't give the preferential rate for second properties. Not sure if you follow the news, but we already have a system in place for people to access cheap, government guaranteed mortgages so long as they're not second homes or rental properties...

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5795050&forum_id=2)#49414745)

I shouldn't bother to respond to an actual idiot, but even mortgages owned by Fannie and Freddie are not formally guaranteed by the government. There is an understanding that the government will bail them out if shit really hits the fan (and the government did during ITE), and that keeps mortgage rates lower. But there is still some risk associated with these mortgages. If you make mortgage rates lower than the long-term Treasury rate, nobody is going to issue a mortgage, because you would have to accept greater risk for a lower return. That's precisely why mortgage rates tend to track long-term Treasury rates. This is all Econ 101 stuff. Maybe go read an economics textbook before pushing moronic ideas on xoxo.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5795050&forum_id=2)#49415000)

There's always some shitty hook nose to fill the gap.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5795050&forum_id=2)#49414467)

https://www.mortgagenewsdaily.com/data/existing-home-sales

existing homes are being sold at a rate in line with the historic average. housing sales increased during covid because people had more flexibility where they could work, wanted to leave cities that weren't offering the things people move to cities for, etc.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5795050&forum_id=2)#49414796)

And they tell us Hitler was a "bad" man

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5795050&forum_id=2)#49414461)

Here is what the available information indicates about Gaddafi's housing finance policies:

## **Key Mortgage/Housing Policies Under Gaddafi**

| Policy | Description | Source |

|--------|-------------|--------|

| **Interest-Free Loans** | State-owned banks provided loans to citizens at **0% interest**, particularly to married couples. These were not conventional mortgages but direct government lending. | , , |

| **State-Owned Banking** | All banks were state-owned, eliminating private sector mortgage lending. Housing finance was a government function, not a market mechanism. | , |

| **Construction Support Laws** | **Law No. 2 of 1981** aimed to support construction, reconstruction, and encourage real estate investment. **Law No. 116 of 1972** provided residential subsidies. | |

| **Rent Controls & Price Fixing** | Compulsory rent reductions of **30-40%** were mandated, along with statutory price controls on housing. | |

| **Property Ownership Restrictions** | **Law 4/1978** limited individuals to **one house** only; additional properties were confiscated. This prevented speculative real estate investment and private rental markets. | |

## **How the System Worked**

Instead of a Western-style mortgage market, Gaddafi's Libya used:

1. **Direct state provision**: Government allocated housing units, often through employers or revolutionary committees

2. **Zero-interest loans**: For those who qualified (especially newlyweds), loans were interest-free but came with strict eligibility criteria

3. **No private lending**: No commercial banks or mortgage companies existed to offer market-rate home loans

4. **Construction subsidies**: The state directly funded housing construction, bypassing private developers

## **Limitations & Context**

**Post-Gaddafi housing crisis**: The 2025 CAHF report notes that Libya currently has a **"malfunctioning housing market"** with **"no access to long-term mortgage loans"** and a **"chronic housing shortage"** . This suggests Gaddafi's statist model **did not create sustainable housing finance institutions** that survived his regime.

**Bottom line**: Gaddafi eliminated interest and private property speculation, but the system relied entirely on state control rather than building a functional mortgage market.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5795050&forum_id=2)#49414529)

-tj

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5795050&forum_id=2)#49414481)

We are past the point of rational pricing in society on things like that. GC’s goal is to strip-mine as much extra cash as a household gets so households don’t get ahead ever.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5795050&forum_id=2)#49414703)

and Trump bragging that FDR created the 30yr mortgage is lol

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5795050&forum_id=2)#49414759)

i'm not saying that this is a good policy. but i'm not as cynical about his motivations. although i'm sure stimulating the economy regardless of the long-term consequences factors in too.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5795050&forum_id=2)#49414807)

the government is currently shut down because of deadlock on the budget. trump can't just wave a magic wand and start funding massive development projects.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5795050&forum_id=2)#49414837)

- eliminate tariffs and other price controls on building materials

- forgive student debt or eliminate interest on student debt

- job creation incentives including more grants, tech cities

Just the tip of the iceberg. Such a cuck response

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5795050&forum_id=2)#49415345)

lol @ this "conservative" pumo arguing for more illegal labor

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5795050&forum_id=2)#49415051)

Why it’s feasible

Here are some of the levers the federal government already has (or could expand) to influence zoning/housing outcomes:

The federal government funds states and localities for housing, infrastructure, transportation, etc. Those funding flows create leverage: if a locality wants those funds, the feds can attach conditions (or rewards) tied to housing/zoning reform. For example, a competitive grant program for zoning reform.

Habitat for Humanity

+3

Birchwood

+3

American Planning Association

+3

The feds can produce model codes, best practices, toolkits and encourage adoption. Having a “model zoning code” or streamlined permitting approach is a lower‐barrier technical tool.

Economic Innovation Group

+1

The feds can require reporting, evaluation, measurement of outcomes (units built, time to permit, etc.), enabling “pay for performance” style incentives. For instance, in one proposal the feds would pay localities for each housing unit built per acre.

Economic Innovation Group

The role of states: As described in a state/local context, states shape the housing strategy by enabling or pre-empting local zoning, providing support/funding, and mandating planning.

Local Housing Solutions

There’s precedent: The federal government recently created an $85 million competitive grant for local governments to help with zoning reform.

American Planning Association

+1

So: while the feds cannot (practically) order every municipality to abolish zoning, they can shift the economics and incentives such that states/localities choose to reform.

How it has been done / ongoing efforts

Here are some existing or emerging federal incentive mechanisms:

The “Yes in My Backyard” (YIMBY) style grant program: According to a legal blog, the omnibus spending bill created a “Yes In My Backyard” competitive grant program to support zoning reforms (multi‐family, affordable housing) for local governments.

Birchwood

The $85 million competitive grant program for zoning reform: recent articles note that the feds made available ~$85 million for local governments to implement zoning/land-use changes to remove barriers.

American Planning Association

+1

Proposals for “Right-to-Build Zones”: In one think‐tank piece, a design is laid out where localities adopt model zoning codes and in exchange they receive federal “New Home Dividend” payments based on units built per acre.

Economic Innovation Group

Technical assistance and streamlining: The feds encouraging by‐right development, removing or reducing parking minimums, reducing lot sizes or setbacks, streamlining approvals. These types of regulatory incentives are referenced in state/local reform literature.

NAHB

+1

Some concrete ideas: How the federal government could structure incentives

Here are specific ideas that the feds (or that your law/consulting practice could structure for clients) to incentivize states/localities to eliminate or loosen zoning for more housing. These are built around three broad categories: financial incentives, regulatory/technical assistance, outcome-based rewards. You could tailor them for a state, regional council, or local government.

Financial incentives

Competitive Grants: The feds set up a large pool of funds (e.g., HUD, DOT, USDA) with the condition that to apply a state or locality must commit to specific zoning reforms (e.g., allow duplex/triplex by right on single-family lots, eliminate minimum parking, allow accessory dwelling units). The grant funds can be used for infrastructure, offset permitting costs, relocation of existing uses, etc.

Block Grants with Conditions: Existing federal housing/infrastructure block grants (e.g., HOME Investment Partnerships Program) could include a bonus allocation if the state meets certain zoning reform benchmarks. For example: if within 3 years the state shows that X% of its municipalities adopted code changes allowing “missing middle” housing, then extra funds unlock. (HOME is already used for affordable housing, and the feds could layer zoning reform metrics on top.)

Wikipedia

+1

Tax Credit/Loan Incentives: The federal government could partner with state housing finance agencies to create tax credits or low-interest loans for developers building in municipalities that have eased zoning constraints. These financial incentives would be conditional on the locality’s zoning reform status.

Infrastructure or Transit Funding Tied to Housing/Zoning Reform: Federal infrastructure (e.g., transportation, utilities) funding could be prioritized for jurisdictions that commit to housing zoning reform (higher density near transit, faster permitting). For example, pulling from an article on federal housing via transportation funding.

Urban Institute

Regulatory / Technical Assistance

Model Zoning Codes / “Right‐to‐Build” Overlay Zones: The feds develop (or certify) a model zoning/land-use code that dramatically lowers barriers (allow by-right duplexes/triplexes, minimal parking, low setbacks, expedite approvals). States/localities that adopt the model (or adopt within X% of it) qualify for technical assistance and funding. (See the “Right-to-Build Zones” proposal.)

Economic Innovation Group

Permitting/Approval Speed Targets: The feds provide grants or rewards if the state/local jurisdiction can show that average permitting time for housing was reduced by X% (say 30%) over Y years, particularly in newly zoned areas. The feds can provide training, software, regulatory review, and funding support to implement streamlined processes.

Data / Monitoring / Reporting Support: The feds can fund state/local governments to upgrade their tracking of housing production, zoning reform metrics, permitting times – in return for more transparent data that enables outcome-based funding. (This also creates accountability.)

Outcome-based rewards

Unit‐production Dividends: A reward payment to localities per housing unit (or per “net new” housing units) built in jurisdictions that met certain zoning standards. For example: “For every additional 10 units of multifamily housing built within a jurisdiction that has adopted by-right zoning for up to 4 units on every lot, the locality receives $X.” This aligns incentives: more production = more reward. (As in the “New Home Dividends” concept.)

Economic Innovation Group

Bonus Funding for High‐Density Corridors: If a state/locality identifies priority corridors (e.g., near transit) and relaxes zoning there (allow 6-9 stories, mixed use, minimal parking), then the feds provide a bonus or multiplier for units built in those corridors (e.g., 1.5x the reward dollars for those units).

Sanctions or Reduced Funding if No Reform: Though less popular politically, the feds could reduce or withhold certain discretionary grant opportunities or give lower priority to jurisdictions that fail to undertake any zoning reform after a given time. (This is a carrot-and sometimes stick approach.)

Hybrid Strategy: Example “Incentive Package”

Here’s how a packaged incentive might look:

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) offers a “Housing Zoning Innovation Fund” of $500 million over 5 years.

To participate, a state must certify that it will adopt or direct its municipalities to adopt by-right zoning for up to 4 units on single-family lots, eliminate minimum parking requirements for new multifamily within ½-mile of transit, and reduce average permitting time by 25% in targeted zones.

Once certified, municipalities receive technical assistance + up to $50 million in infrastructure/permit-automation funds.

In addition, the state/localities earn “production payments” of $20,000 for each new housing unit built in eligible zones above the baseline.

The program would include annual monitoring: permitting time, unit counts, lot sizes, parking mandates removed, etc.

After year 3, if a participating jurisdiction fails to meet minimum benchmarks (e.g., <10% growth in units in eligible zones), their bonus payments drop or they’re removed from the program.

Tailored considerations for your context (law-firm / growth / advisory)

Given your background (JD + CFP, building a practice, interested in both legal/regulatory work and helping with housing/development processes) here are ways you could incorporate this into your advisory offering:

For municipal clients / local governments: You could advise on how to position themselves to capture federal funds tied to zoning reform. That means guiding them on revising their zoning code, doing the required certification/monitoring, applying for grants, and designing implementation plans. Because many local governments lack capacity, your value would be high.

For developer clients: You can help identify jurisdictions that have committed to zoning reform, and then structure deals that leverage federal/state bonus payments or tax credits that come from those reforms. Knowing “which localities are eligible” becomes a point of competitive advantage.

For state/regional advisory: You could help draft or review model code/adoption packages that qualify jurisdictions for federal incentives. You could help state housing agencies design their application processes, monitor outcomes, verify compliance, etc.

Framing your content/marketing: Since your ideal client might include municipalities or developers striving to “do more housing, faster,” you can highlight how federal incentives lower the cost/risk of code reform or project approval. You can position your firm as “we help you tap the federal zoning reform era”.

Link to your advisory growth plan: As you build your practice, this opens a niche — regulatory/land-use incentives + housing production. It’s adjacent to estate/planning but different — possibly a second arm of your firm (land-use advisory) which could cross-refer with your wealth clients who may own land or want to invest in housing.

Some caveats & risks

Politics: Zoning is highly political. Even if the feds provide incentives, local resistance (NIMBYism) may slow or block reforms.

Implementation burden: Monitoring, compliance, data gathering, bureaucratic requirements might discourage smaller jurisdictions.

Equity risk: Simply increasing unit counts may lead to gentrification or displacement if not paired with affordability protections.

Timing: Permitting, construction timelines are long—reward structures must account for lag.

Legal boundaries: Local land-use powers are strong; the feds must rely on incentive/conditional funding rather than heavy mandates (unless the state preempts local control).

If you like, I can pull together a draft “Federal Zoning Incentive Blueprint” — a two‐page summary your clients (municipal or developer) could use, plus a checklist of states/localities already adopting such reforms (so you have leads). Would you like me to do that?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5795050&forum_id=2)#49415356)

lmfao oh boy opportunity zones!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5795050&forum_id=2)#49415431)

But that's beside the point. The only reason this labor is "illegal" is because of federal government polices. Create a visa for short-term unskilled labor. Exempt these visa holders from the minimum wage and other workforce protections to make sure that they are literally only taking jobs that Americans don't want. Create a database to make sure that they don't overstay their visas. A high percentage of undocumented immigrants in the U.S. would prefer to just do temporary work, send money back to their families, and then leave when their visa expires. But they can't do that, because we don't have a visa for short-term unskilled labor. If you want to build houses or pick crops, you have to either abuse a tourist visa or sneak in illegally. It's asinine. Even if you are opposed to increasing levels of immigration, allowing short-term unskilled foreign work is a net benefit for everyone involved.

And the federal government could easily pass legislation to make some kind of federal funding contingent on eliminating NIMBY policies. I would have to think about what form this legislation would take, but it could be done. And there is nothing to stop states or local governments from combating nimbyism if the feds won't do it.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5795050&forum_id=2)#49415521)