6 ms·

The direct negative effect on the quality of life of high housing costs is astonishing. Yet there's no real public uproar. When the price of gas goes up, seemin

by ricw 10y ago

The direct negative effect on the quality of life of high housing costs is astonishing. Yet there's no real public uproar. When the price of gas goes up, seemingly everyone is up in arms. But housing?! People complain, but no where near as much as they should. In areas with high housing costs, this should be the primary political issue. I guess nepotism just wins the argument...

fullshark 10y ago
Well a lot of people own houses and are happy about it. There is plenty of uproar about it from renters. Mountain View just passed a rent control measure for example.
matt_wulfeck 10y ago
There is an uproar, but there's an equal and greater uproar in the opposite direction whenever there's a new housing attempted to be built. Existing homeowners and establishment rally against it and they're quite organized. Couple this with the fact that California is entrenched in bureaucratic red tape, and you can see why nothing ever gets done about it.
throwaway76543 10y ago
It's a split issue. Renters want prices to go down. Owners want prices to go up. Who wins the political clash? Are there more voting owners, or voting renters? Generally there are more owners, though California has one of the lowest home ownership rates at around 53%. Cities draw this average down -- most suburbs have higher ownership rates. With this in mind it shouldn't be a surprise that owners outvote renters.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- erikpukinskis 10y ago
  > Are there more voting owners, or voting renters? Doesn't matter. Owners win because we live in capitalist society, and capitalism means you must be an owner to get full rights. Non-gentry are second class citizens (no free movement, no access to clean water, no right to work the land, no right to build shelter). No free movement: I can't travel to many places without a car because property owners decided only people who own cars should be legally allowed to access a place. No access to clean water: water is a resource owned by corporations, the people drink at the corporation's pleasure. No right to work/shelter ones self: all land has been sold off, new people born into this world must first serve the gentry until the gentry decide to pay them enough to buy some land of their own.
  - obstacle1 10y ago
    >Owners win because we live in capitalist society NYC exists under the same capitalist system as SF or LA or wherever. Nothing you have described (need to drive, no clean water, etc.) applies to NYC. Therefore, your gripes aren't caused by the capitalist system you are blaming.
    - throwaway743824 10y ago
      I guess one can say it's a similar system. But, while definitions might differ, I'm not sure how capitalist I would call one of the largest government run subway systems in the world [0], half century long water tunneling projects [1] or the longest running rent control system in the US [2]. [0] https://www.forbes.com/sites/timothylee/2012/06/03/infrastructure-socialism-and-the-new-york-subway/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/timothylee/2012/06/03/infrastru... [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/10/nyregion/10tunnel.html http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/10/nyregion/10tunnel.html [2] http://www.tenant.net/Oversight/50yrRentReg/history.html http://www.tenant.net/Oversight/50yrRentReg/history.html
- BurningFrog 10y ago
  Much of the voting takes place in neighborhood meetings, not in general elections. This system heavily favors existing home owners over the general public.
- true_tuna 10y ago
  Renters fight new construction too. "Gentrification will raise our rents". It's absurd how hard it is to get a permit to build in SF. Mountain View fought new housing construction for a decade as google was ramping up. Nobody seems to remember first year economics when it comes to construction on their block.
digi_owl 10y ago
A large portion of that is likely because many approach house ownership as a investment rather than a living expense. Very few buy gas from the pump with the expectation of selling it again once the price rises. Housing as an investment object is a disease of the mind.
jldugger 10y ago
> In areas with high housing costs, this should be the primary political issue. Probably the best way to think of America is a society of land speculators. Europe was full, so we moved over the pond to settle a new land. During the expansion westward, communities built their towns up in the hopes that theirs would be the one that makes it big. Today, renters are treated as slightly suspect drifters with 'no sense of community,' which is a coded way of saying they're okay with falling property values. Which is threatening in a society where the majority are invested in real estate. It's not too hard to look at policies and see the implicit high property value bias. Environmental regulations, property tax moratoriums, public schools, interest rate policies, urban growth boundaries, public transportation; they all tie in, if a bit obliquely. So I'm not surprised in a country where 63 percent of people own the home they live in, that high housing prices aren't a political priority. When we've all collectively made a bet that home prices go up, should we be surprised when policies are voted in to support that opinion?

by ricw 10y ago

fullshark 10y ago

Well a lot of people own houses and are happy about it. There is plenty of uproar about it from renters. Mountain View just passed a rent control measure for example.

matt_wulfeck 10y ago

There is an uproar, but there's an equal and greater uproar in the opposite direction whenever there's a new housing attempted to be built. Existing homeowners and establishment rally against it and they're quite organized. Couple this with the fact that California is entrenched in bureaucratic red tape, and you can see why nothing ever gets done about it.

throwaway76543 10y ago

It's a split issue. Renters want prices to go down. Owners want prices to go up. Who wins the political clash? Are there more voting owners, or voting renters? Generally there are more owners, though California has one of the lowest home ownership rates at around 53%. Cities draw this average down -- most suburbs have higher ownership rates. With this in mind it shouldn't be a surprise that owners outvote renters.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
erikpukinskis 10y ago
> Are there more voting owners, or voting renters? Doesn't matter. Owners win because we live in capitalist society, and capitalism means you must be an owner to get full rights. Non-gentry are second class citizens (no free movement, no access to clean water, no right to work the land, no right to build shelter). No free movement: I can't travel to many places without a car because property owners decided only people who own cars should be legally allowed to access a place. No access to clean water: water is a resource owned by corporations, the people drink at the corporation's pleasure. No right to work/shelter ones self: all land has been sold off, new people born into this world must first serve the gentry until the gentry decide to pay them enough to buy some land of their own.
- obstacle1 10y ago
  >Owners win because we live in capitalist society NYC exists under the same capitalist system as SF or LA or wherever. Nothing you have described (need to drive, no clean water, etc.) applies to NYC. Therefore, your gripes aren't caused by the capitalist system you are blaming.
  - throwaway743824 10y ago
    I guess one can say it's a similar system. But, while definitions might differ, I'm not sure how capitalist I would call one of the largest government run subway systems in the world [0], half century long water tunneling projects [1] or the longest running rent control system in the US [2]. [0] https://www.forbes.com/sites/timothylee/2012/06/03/infrastructure-socialism-and-the-new-york-subway/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/timothylee/2012/06/03/infrastru... [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/10/nyregion/10tunnel.html http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/10/nyregion/10tunnel.html [2] http://www.tenant.net/Oversight/50yrRentReg/history.html http://www.tenant.net/Oversight/50yrRentReg/history.html
BurningFrog 10y ago
Much of the voting takes place in neighborhood meetings, not in general elections. This system heavily favors existing home owners over the general public.
true_tuna 10y ago
Renters fight new construction too. "Gentrification will raise our rents". It's absurd how hard it is to get a permit to build in SF. Mountain View fought new housing construction for a decade as google was ramping up. Nobody seems to remember first year economics when it comes to construction on their block.

digi_owl 10y ago

A large portion of that is likely because many approach house ownership as a investment rather than a living expense. Very few buy gas from the pump with the expectation of selling it again once the price rises. Housing as an investment object is a disease of the mind.

jldugger 10y ago

> In areas with high housing costs, this should be the primary political issue. Probably the best way to think of America is a society of land speculators. Europe was full, so we moved over the pond to settle a new land. During the expansion westward, communities built their towns up in the hopes that theirs would be the one that makes it big. Today, renters are treated as slightly suspect drifters with 'no sense of community,' which is a coded way of saying they're okay with falling property values. Which is threatening in a society where the majority are invested in real estate. It's not too hard to look at policies and see the implicit high property value bias. Environmental regulations, property tax moratoriums, public schools, interest rate policies, urban growth boundaries, public transportation; they all tie in, if a bit obliquely. So I'm not surprised in a country where 63 percent of people own the home they live in, that high housing prices aren't a political priority. When we've all collectively made a bet that home prices go up, should we be surprised when policies are voted in to support that opinion?