4 ms·

Yes, undersupply and high prices are a problem. Only 9% of the housing stock in SF is available for rent at market rates. I know it is the desired effect of s

• resu_nimda 11y ago
  but my point is that it doesn't do a good job, and it doesn't have the desired effect, and that there are unseen costs. You haven't really demonstrated that it's worse than the alternative, let alone how or why. Of course there are unseen costs; there always are, with matters of public policy affecting so many people. I could say the same exact thing about the inverse situation of an unregulated free market - "there are unseen costs that are hard to measure." Is that a strong argument against it? edit: In other words, how do you conclude that the costs that you describe outweigh the costs of people being pushed out of their homes, the cultural effects, etc? Ultimately it ends up as a subjective value judgment, there are too many factors and human emotions at play to be objective. I don't really believe in trickle-down economics or the magic ability of the free market to correct all social ills, I believe in directly helping those that need it most.
  • thwarted 11y ago
    I don't really believe in trickle-down economics or the magic ability of the free market to correct all social ills, I believe in directly helping those that need it most. In some cases, "those who need it most" only need it because of the economic environment created by regulation. In many cases, "directly helping" may solve the short-term, immediate concerns of those housing/economically disadvantaged, but doesn't actually serve to fix the problem that's making things the way they are to begin with. In SF, there's a lot of rhetoric around "market rate housing" and "affordable housing". Presenting it as a dichotomy as such ignores that there are things that could be done to make market rate housing the same price as affordable housing. There wouldn't be talk of "affordable" housing as a distinct thing if "market rate" wasn't so out of whack because of the complex economic and political incentives and setup in California, the Bay Area, and SF. Another thing that I see frequently glossed over is that "market rate" isn't a single thing. It has different values based the actual quality of the property in question. I'd love to move into a better place at the same rent I'm paying now, because really, my current place is way overpriced considering the quality and I can afford to continue to pay the rate I'm paying. But it's not worth it for me to move because so many places are equal or less quality and equal or more in price. There are no better places coming on the market at this price point. If the economic and political climate was such that the market was able to provide an equal or greater quality place for equal or greater price, that would free up a lesser quality place (because I could move there) and reduce its price to a market rate based on its quality that someone with lesser means could then afford. The availability of residences is a significant contributor to the market rate for residences in SF, so much so that it dwarfs all other possible influences on the market rate. That being said, I do believe that the market needs to be able to provide a wide range of quality — just building high end housing isn't going to be as fast or as solid of a fix as building housing for many different kinds of economic classes. This is part of the problem around mandates to build "affordable housing" or "subsidized housing" (usually as a percentage of total building): these are, by definition, below market rate, but someone is paying for the difference between "affordable" and "market". That spread needs to be reduced, rather than subsidized.
    • resu_nimda 11y ago
      In many cases, "directly helping" may solve the short-term, immediate concerns of those housing/economically disadvantaged, but doesn't actually serve to fix the problem that's making things the way they are to begin with. Agreed. In this case, the problem is that a lot of people with money want to live in SF now and there just aren't enough places to put them. I do agree with the consensus that the NIMBYs need to accept that and allow construction of more units, at all price points. that would free up a lesser quality place (because I could move there) and reduce its price to a market rate based on its quality that someone with lesser means could then afford. Maybe, but that is basically a trickle-down assumption. It's also possible that there is a near-inexhaustible supply of rich people who would buy a second or third or fourth home, or foreigners looking for pied-a-terres, and then this expensive low-density new construction has left everyone else exactly where they were, except market rates may have actually increased. The reason I lean towards subsidized housing is because (yes, in the short term), it directly helps the people that are struggling, rather than relying on the playing out of complex economic theories that coincidentally give justification for rich people to not actually care about poor people ("just let us do our thing, and eventually it will work out for everyone else...we promise").
      • thwarted 11y ago
        that is basically a trickle-down assumption Invoking Reaganomics is a red-herring. It's used as a response to the kinds/quality of buildings built in the short term (or currently are being built) as if that's the only kind that need to or will be built (however, it is the only kind that is and will be built without policy change and getting rid of NIMBYism). That's not the case. As I said, there needs to be a glut of all kinds of buildings being built. There is no reason to build anything other than high end currently, because availability is limited. The reason I lean towards subsidized housing is because (yes, in the short term), it directly helps the people that are struggling, rather than relying on the playing out of complex economic theories This is not an either or proposition, however it is often presented as one (and you just did with the use of "rather"). It is possible to subsidize those who need it in the short term and open up the market for a wider range of building with effects to occur in the medium and long term. Both should be done. Once the market forces take effect, the subsidizes won't be as necessary. Or alternatively, if you're completely right that the market won't fix any of this, the subsidizes will already be in effect and useful and they can continue and we'll have a larger set of housing stock. Supply and demand is not a "complex" economic theory, and presenting it as complex is disingenous. What we have now, with perverse incentives, taking everything to the voters with propositions at election time, NIMBYism, subsidizies, uninutitive zoning, is what is complex and leads to unintended consequences. Make no mistake: we are where we are now specifically because of decisions made over the last twenty years (although, one can argue that where we are now is exactly where NIMBYs want us to be). Directly building more residences is not the only thing that can be done to lessen this pressure either. There are huge swatches of the city that are undesirable specifically because of lack of accessiblity and transportation. Public works projects that directly benefit all economic classes need to be considered, and perhaps forced through. However, none of these things can be done overnight and if we were to start today on any of them we wouldn't see any significant movement for a few years and the end result for perhaps a decade. That's part of the problem too: there's a desire to see the effects immediately, but there is literally nothing that can have effect immediately. But doing what we're doing now, restrictions on building, moritoriums for research (which is really just a delaying tactic—I don't believe any "impact study" in California is a sincere concern for whatever is being studied), isn't helping anyone and only serves to push prices higher in the shorter term. Solely subsidizing housing doesn't address the fact that the spread between what lower income backets can pay and what is available is going to keep increasing, which is only going to serve to make subsidies more expensive over time. And continuing to increasingly pay more for something when there are other things to at least try to reduce the cost is a losing proposition.
• gozo 11y ago
  "subsidies [...] doesn't do a good job" seem pretty hand-waving to me. I can't even be sure what you mean, do you mean "rent control doesn't lower prices for everyone"? Which is true but also probably the biggest straw man in housing discussions.
  • stvswn 11y ago
    I mean the net effect of any housing subsidy in isolation or all housing subsidies in aggregate is likely negative. By subsidies I mean any government policy which distorts the market from either the supply side or the demand side. In every case it's a subsidy -- the only differences are to whom and from whom. I am not erecting a straw-man, because I didn't representing the opposing view as "rent control is meant to lower prices for everyone." I understand that people in favor of rent control may not care that it inflates housing prices for others. My point is that the net effect is negative, based on the concept of the broken windows fallacy, which is a well-reasoned concept. I also believe that subsidies don't do a great job in housing specifically because they tend to limit supply -- and so we see a benefit occurring to those who get the subsidy, but we don't see how many more people could have had housing, but do not, in the counterfactual case. Anyway, I think I'm making a substantive point, so I don't get the accusation of "hand-waving." Accusing someone of ignoring complexity is not an argument against the points they did make.