5 ms·

The traditional wisdom was to always build A-quality housing, so people from B could upgrade to A, people in C to the recently vacated B etc. Building the possi

by nikanj 11y ago

The traditional wisdom was to always build A-quality housing, so people from B could upgrade to A, people in C to the recently vacated B etc. Building the possible quality increased the quality of housing available for everyone, whereas building as cheaply as possible gave us "the projects". Unfortunately the demand for A-quality housing is now global, and building luxury condos doesn't mean an upgrade for the doctor down the street, it means more investment opportunity for foreign capital. The modern A-quality housing is firmly out of the reach of your traditional upper middle class, at least in world-class cities.

jacobolus 11y ago
This could be ameliorated via changes to the tax system. For instance, a higher tax rate for non-owner-occupied property, or a higher marginal tax rate for everything beyond the first 1000 square feet. The problem in most cities though is insufficient housing to meet local demand, rather than foreign investment per se. So maybe Georgist land value taxes combined with relaxed zoning requirements (e.g. less parking requirement, smaller minimum unit sizes, taller height limits, more mixed residential/commercial zones, etc.) would be a better approach. In San Francisco, for example, something like 3/4 of the city is zoned to only allow 1–2 units per lot, and is made up of single-family detached homes, with excessively wide streets and tons of parking. If even a fraction of this land was re-zoned to allow 5-story mixed use buildings, downtown Paris style, the city could fit a lot more housing.
- ChuckMcM 11y ago
  I was going to say something similar. There is plenty of opportunity to apply taxes here on "tertiary" housing, houses which are not the primary residence of the owner. Sufficiently targeted requirements would hit the .1% and leave the rest unscathed. Of course those folks have a tremendous ability to encourage a different policy, but more and more cities could use the additional funding.
  - mattzito 11y ago
    As a Manhattan resident, the problem you describe isn't really the one being addressed by de blasio's plan. "Billionaires row" in midtown was already expensive real estate beforehand in a very desirable neighborhood, it just got converted into giant wealth safety deposit boxes. The Williamsburg example from the article is more of the core problem being addressed - how do we allow a neighborhood that was not so desirable to be redeveloped without blowing it to bits. I do also believe we should tax non-primary residence apartments for the reasons you describe, but it's a separate problem.
    - sokoloff 11y ago
      [Differentially] Taxing non-resident housing encourages buying first houses on the margin, but also hurts renters (as the tax is passed through in the rental economics). I'm not saying it's all bad, but it's sure not all good either...
      - eru 11y ago
        That's why you tax land, not houses. Land value taxes can't be passed through.
eru 11y ago
That's called filtering. It still works. http://oldurbanist.blogspot.com.au/2011/01/concept-of-filtering.html http://oldurbanist.blogspot.com.au/2011/01/concept-of-filter...

by nikanj 11y ago

jacobolus 11y ago

This could be ameliorated via changes to the tax system. For instance, a higher tax rate for non-owner-occupied property, or a higher marginal tax rate for everything beyond the first 1000 square feet. The problem in most cities though is insufficient housing to meet local demand, rather than foreign investment per se. So maybe Georgist land value taxes combined with relaxed zoning requirements (e.g. less parking requirement, smaller minimum unit sizes, taller height limits, more mixed residential/commercial zones, etc.) would be a better approach. In San Francisco, for example, something like 3/4 of the city is zoned to only allow 1–2 units per lot, and is made up of single-family detached homes, with excessively wide streets and tons of parking. If even a fraction of this land was re-zoned to allow 5-story mixed use buildings, downtown Paris style, the city could fit a lot more housing.

ChuckMcM 11y ago
I was going to say something similar. There is plenty of opportunity to apply taxes here on "tertiary" housing, houses which are not the primary residence of the owner. Sufficiently targeted requirements would hit the .1% and leave the rest unscathed. Of course those folks have a tremendous ability to encourage a different policy, but more and more cities could use the additional funding.
- mattzito 11y ago
  As a Manhattan resident, the problem you describe isn't really the one being addressed by de blasio's plan. "Billionaires row" in midtown was already expensive real estate beforehand in a very desirable neighborhood, it just got converted into giant wealth safety deposit boxes. The Williamsburg example from the article is more of the core problem being addressed - how do we allow a neighborhood that was not so desirable to be redeveloped without blowing it to bits. I do also believe we should tax non-primary residence apartments for the reasons you describe, but it's a separate problem.
  - sokoloff 11y ago
    [Differentially] Taxing non-resident housing encourages buying first houses on the margin, but also hurts renters (as the tax is passed through in the rental economics). I'm not saying it's all bad, but it's sure not all good either...
    - eru 11y ago
      That's why you tax land, not houses. Land value taxes can't be passed through.

eru 11y ago

That's called filtering. It still works. http://oldurbanist.blogspot.com.au/2011/01/concept-of-filtering.html http://oldurbanist.blogspot.com.au/2011/01/concept-of-filter...