5 ms·

I've only lived in Seattle for about 6 years, but have seen / felt a rise in rents over that time. When we moved here, lots of rentals were offering one or two

I've only lived in Seattle for about 6 years, but have seen / felt a rise in rents over that time. When we moved here, lots of rentals were offering one or two months free rent as a move in special. Now, not so much. Because he was sick of friends moving away, a friend of mine made his rookie run for the city council this past year. He didn't survive the primary, but he had some good ideas about housing that have in part been taken up by other candidates going forward. The first was a mandatory inclusionary zoning policy, which would give developers building incentives, such as allowing additional height, in exchange for a fixed percentage of units being affordable. Affordability here was defined in terms of HUD's guidelines for percentage of income spent on housing (in this case assuming someone earning Seattle's decidedly not-livable minimum wage). Some form of that first idea seems to have survived my friend's candidacy to live on in other proposals / candidate platforms. Another that I thought was clever, but hasn't seen much uptake, tried addressing the problem from the demand side. Here the idea is that Seattle would run its own voucher program to subsidize rents for low-income people. This one was a little more ambitious and would require new revenues, but is a nice alternative to supply side options. And of course a purely supply side solution doesn't entirely solve the problem. New units tend to command higher rents in general. Also, a glut of condos might not reduce prices so much as encourage speculation from non-resident owners. Certainly more units need to built, but new construction doesn't entirely solve affordability in the near term.

rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
This is a severely under-appreciated point about housing costs. I live in a college town and rents have been climbing to the degree where the ratio of income to housing expenses is the highest in the nation, leaving New York and San Francisco in the dust. Every once in a while there will be more proposals to build condos over existing houses or apartments. We've been here before: housing stock is considerably increased while rents around town are given an implicit "go" to be raised across the board. If you're a financially struggling student at an Ivy League school you're not just gonna up and leave cause your rent went up another $100-$200. You're just gonna take out more debt. It doesn't help that aside from campus housing there are like 3 landlords in the whole city Building housing in a bull market is almost always the right choice, but let's not pretend rents are going to magically fall. Or stop rising. Housing is one of the most elastic goods one can find. Everyone has to sleep somewhere.
- xxpor 11y ago
  >I live in a college town Boulder? Because if so, PLEASE vote down the land use issues on the ballot. http://www.citylab.com/housing/2015/10/they-are-coming-for-our-neighborhoods/408994/ http://www.citylab.com/housing/2015/10/they-are-coming-for-o...
  - rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
    Ithaca, where we don't have the luxury of flatness so everything's hemmed in by the lake and the hills, like a reverse geography San Francisco
    - mahyarm 11y ago
      You can build on hills. I've lived on a hill.
- roymurdock 11y ago
  Minor point, but I think you mean inelastic goods. The only solution I can see to solve my rent problem is to move to a very low-demand market. Looking into hunkering down in a cabin in Alaksa for a while because rents in the Boston area are just dumb for a recent grad.
- ceras 11y ago
  > Building housing in a bull market is almost always the right choice, but let's not pretend rents are going to magically fall. Or stop rising. Housing is one of the most elastic goods one can find. Everyone has to sleep somewhere. It doesn't matter if it's inelastic if demand can meet supply. The econ 101 example is diamonds (expensive but useless) vs. water (dirt cheap but necessary): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_value https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_value If the theory's not enough for you, I don't have it on hand but there's empirical research that shows this relationship holds for housing like it does for any other good.
13thLetter 11y ago
> Here the idea is that Seattle would run its own voucher program to subsidize rents for low-income people. The problem with subsidy programs like that is that the rents then simply go up by the amount of the subsidy.
- peatmoss 11y ago
  You're right that subsidy tends to increase prices, but the rate by which that happens isn't fixed the way you describe. Vouchers result in an average increase in buying power. Over the whole population of renters (those eligible and those ineligible), this would be a marginal increase. And yes, it's likely rents would achieve a new equilibrium consistent with that aggregate increase in buying power. But, on the other hand, the voucher programs would increase the buying power of the absolute neediest people at a greater marginal rate than for the population as a whole. The end result is that poor people's ability to participate in the housing market still improves, in that their ability to meet rent becomes more commensurate with people more affluent than them.
- mjevans 11y ago
  The solution is increasing the supply (which is how you actually drive down prices).
mahyarm 11y ago
The fact there are height limits in the first place are part of the problem. Height limits should be removed, and height minimums should be put in place. SF is giving pathetic 2 floor height limit increases in exchange for a larger amount of BMR units when new development should be multifamily only development with a minimum of 10 floors.
- ceras 11y ago
  I agree the height restrictions should be more generous, but we shouldn't go to the other extreme. A minimum isn't necessary: property developers will build as much as they think will turn any profit whatsoever. You don't need to force them to try to make money -- just get out of there way! There's also a downside to minimums: 10-story buildings aren't very cheap to build (unlike 5-story buildings), causing problems if you want new housing stock to target the poor and working class. This makes it challenging to build on the urban fringe where 3-story buildings should be replacing single family homes. 10-story buildings have no business out there, unless maybe you're building next to a transit hub. You can try to define the "core" part of the city that needs 10-story buildings, but this is more micromanaging than you need to be, and the law will need to keep up with a changing urban landscape. As we've seen in SF and many other US cities, that's a tall order.

rm_-rf_slash 11y ago

This is a severely under-appreciated point about housing costs. I live in a college town and rents have been climbing to the degree where the ratio of income to housing expenses is the highest in the nation, leaving New York and San Francisco in the dust. Every once in a while there will be more proposals to build condos over existing houses or apartments. We've been here before: housing stock is considerably increased while rents around town are given an implicit "go" to be raised across the board. If you're a financially struggling student at an Ivy League school you're not just gonna up and leave cause your rent went up another $100-$200. You're just gonna take out more debt. It doesn't help that aside from campus housing there are like 3 landlords in the whole city Building housing in a bull market is almost always the right choice, but let's not pretend rents are going to magically fall. Or stop rising. Housing is one of the most elastic goods one can find. Everyone has to sleep somewhere.

xxpor 11y ago
>I live in a college town Boulder? Because if so, PLEASE vote down the land use issues on the ballot. http://www.citylab.com/housing/2015/10/they-are-coming-for-our-neighborhoods/408994/ http://www.citylab.com/housing/2015/10/they-are-coming-for-o...
- rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
  Ithaca, where we don't have the luxury of flatness so everything's hemmed in by the lake and the hills, like a reverse geography San Francisco
  - mahyarm 11y ago
    You can build on hills. I've lived on a hill.
roymurdock 11y ago
Minor point, but I think you mean inelastic goods. The only solution I can see to solve my rent problem is to move to a very low-demand market. Looking into hunkering down in a cabin in Alaksa for a while because rents in the Boston area are just dumb for a recent grad.
ceras 11y ago
> Building housing in a bull market is almost always the right choice, but let's not pretend rents are going to magically fall. Or stop rising. Housing is one of the most elastic goods one can find. Everyone has to sleep somewhere. It doesn't matter if it's inelastic if demand can meet supply. The econ 101 example is diamonds (expensive but useless) vs. water (dirt cheap but necessary): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_value https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_value If the theory's not enough for you, I don't have it on hand but there's empirical research that shows this relationship holds for housing like it does for any other good.

13thLetter 11y ago

> Here the idea is that Seattle would run its own voucher program to subsidize rents for low-income people. The problem with subsidy programs like that is that the rents then simply go up by the amount of the subsidy.

peatmoss 11y ago
You're right that subsidy tends to increase prices, but the rate by which that happens isn't fixed the way you describe. Vouchers result in an average increase in buying power. Over the whole population of renters (those eligible and those ineligible), this would be a marginal increase. And yes, it's likely rents would achieve a new equilibrium consistent with that aggregate increase in buying power. But, on the other hand, the voucher programs would increase the buying power of the absolute neediest people at a greater marginal rate than for the population as a whole. The end result is that poor people's ability to participate in the housing market still improves, in that their ability to meet rent becomes more commensurate with people more affluent than them.
mjevans 11y ago
The solution is increasing the supply (which is how you actually drive down prices).

mahyarm 11y ago

The fact there are height limits in the first place are part of the problem. Height limits should be removed, and height minimums should be put in place. SF is giving pathetic 2 floor height limit increases in exchange for a larger amount of BMR units when new development should be multifamily only development with a minimum of 10 floors.

ceras 11y ago
I agree the height restrictions should be more generous, but we shouldn't go to the other extreme. A minimum isn't necessary: property developers will build as much as they think will turn any profit whatsoever. You don't need to force them to try to make money -- just get out of there way! There's also a downside to minimums: 10-story buildings aren't very cheap to build (unlike 5-story buildings), causing problems if you want new housing stock to target the poor and working class. This makes it challenging to build on the urban fringe where 3-story buildings should be replacing single family homes. 10-story buildings have no business out there, unless maybe you're building next to a transit hub. You can try to define the "core" part of the city that needs 10-story buildings, but this is more micromanaging than you need to be, and the law will need to keep up with a changing urban landscape. As we've seen in SF and many other US cities, that's a tall order.