5 ms·

Sometimes those regulations just create a _different_ "tragedy of the commons". For example, building affordable apartments often requires finding "loopholes"

Sometimes those regulations just create a _different_ "tragedy of the commons". For example, building affordable apartments often requires finding "loopholes" and squeezing something through the regulatory process before it gets shut down. If I may quote at length from the Seattle times[0]: > It was the brainchild of the late Bellevue developer Jim Potter, who found a loophole in Seattle’s building regulations. > At the time, the city allowed up to eight unrelated people to live in one “dwelling” with a shared kitchen. The code didn’t say the rooms had to be tied together as a single unit, so Potter built a cross between an apartment building and a boardinghouse, where someone could rent a sleeping room as small as 100 square feet with a private bath and share a kitchen with up to seven others renters. > A micro-housing building spree ensued that gave Seattle more such units than any city in the country. At last count, 782 micro-housing units were cleared for occupancy in Seattle, with another 1,598 units in the pipeline. No other American city comes close. > Once the pipeline is cleared, though, no future Potter-style hybrids will be allowed: The city changed the rules in October after neighbors railed against the projects. Congregate housing — group housing arrangements such as dorms and senior housing that use common areas — is still allowed. But in the future, micro-housing will mean efficiency apartments of at least 220 square feet, each with its own bath and kitchen. --------------------- I'd argue that on the whole, more people are harmed by heavy-handed regulations that limit the mark I know regulations contain more than just "affordable housing" issues, but often the impact of land use regulation is to drive up the cost of housing for everyone, which makes households more sensitive to job loss, and dependent upon a steady income. The 2007-2008 recession could have been partially mitigated if inexpensive housing stock was available for purchase. So, I'd argue that preventing major flooding is good, but the tools by which governments try to prevent that flooding (and other "negative externalities" cause problems more severe than they solve.) [0] http://www.seattletimes.com/pacific-nw-magazine/seattles-micro-housing-boom-offers-an-affordable-alternative/ http://www.seattletimes.com/pacific-nw-magazine/seattles-mic... [1] https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/4/20/the-high-high-price-of-affordable-housing https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/4/20/the-high-high-...

falcolas 9y ago
Microhousing doesn't sound like much of a good thing, if I'm honest. It pushes a lot of functionality normally fulfilled by a house (such as entertainment, eating, work, storage, etc.) onto the city at large - you live in the city, and just sleep in the house. If the city isn't prepared to support such externalities, there's going to be a lot of chaos. 2,000+ families living around Bellevue (a suburb of Seattle, not even Seattle proper) doesn't sound great to me. Seattle isn't known for being a great place to spend your day in the park... Seems to me more like a scam to sell more homes at the cost of the city.
- closeparen 9y ago
  While there may be good arguments in favor of limiting migration into a city, there's this little problem called freedom of movement stemming from the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Constitution [0]. Cities do not get to write immigration policies. It's totally irrelevant that you think an area shouldn't have more people in it. They're coming anyway. Short of a Constitutional amendment, a city can only decide how to house new residents once they arrive. Do they move into new units alongside existing residents, or do they displace those with lower income? Do the new beds cram illegally into existing bedrooms, or do the buildings get taller? If blocking housing construction were an effective way of preventing immigration, that would be one thing. Instead we are all suffering crowded conditions and long commutes because you have cause and effect backwards. Housing units don't cause residents, and the absence of housing units doesn't prevent residents! Residents would, absent your intervention, cause housing units. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_United_States_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_Unit...
- zkms 9y ago
  > It pushes a lot of functionality normally fulfilled by a house (such as entertainment, eating, work, storage, etc.) onto the city at large - you live in the city, and just sleep in the house. This is plainly false. You don't need much space to have a hot plate / microwave / small refrigerator (for food preparation and eating), a desk (where someone can put a laptop and entertain themselves / work), and some small amount of empty floor for storage. I could do much more than just "sleep" in a 150 square foot unit -- in fact, I'd gladly spend most of my time inside doing any of {sleeping, working, eating, watching stuff on laptop, playing games}. Many other people could as well, and I am sure that most of those people would gladly pay less for rent in exchange for living in such housing. To make what would otherwise be safe (with working sprinklers it's safe -- much safer than most housing in the US, in fact!) and serviceable housing illegal does not serve the interests of anyone -- especially not those who are poor.
maxsilver 9y ago
> building affordable apartments often requires finding "loopholes" and squeezing something through the regulatory process before it gets shut down. No one is against affordable housing. But people are often so desperate for housing that they'll 'choose' to take unsafe / unsanitary / unlivable conditions, such as the tenements some people are pushing as a "solution" to housing. People having to resort to these conditions makes everyone's lives worse (both the residents, and the city with which these residents interact in). This looks exactly like the "tragedy of the commons" the parent poster warned about, and a good use of regulation to prevent that abuse. For the same reason you can't sell a car without seatbelts and airbags, Seattle has prevented the new construction of tenements. That's a win for everyone. Real apartments will get built instead, ones that are still super small, but are actually safe and livable.
- closeparen 9y ago
  Are you imagining that people who would be forced to live in tenements simply poof out of existence because the tenements are not built? They live 10-15 people to a 2-bedroom apartment. They live in buildings not meant to be dwellings, off the books, out of reach of building inspectors and fire code (see: Oakland Ghost Ship). They live (and piss and shit and shoot up and overdose) on the street, the public transit system, the library, the parks. None of these things are safe, sanitary, or livable, and the negative externalities to the public are enormous. It's a maddening fallacy when talking about housing construction that you can prevent prevent poverty (or tech workers, for that matter) from existing by prohibiting the kind of housing that you think poor people (or techies) would live in.
  - maxsilver 9y ago
    > Are you imagining that people who would be forced to live in tenements simply poof out of existence because the tenements are not built? No obviously not. But that doesn't mean we should encourage tenements either. There are still hungry/starving people on the street, but we don't eliminate the FDA and let companies sell tainted meat and dairy to "solve" that problem. Part of living in modern society is some basic minimum standards of quality and safety. Obviously those can be abused, but Seattle simply isn't doing that. 220sqft is a totally reasonable minimum. Requiring every unit have at least a bathroom and a non-bathroom sink is a totally reasonable minimum. > It's a maddening fallacy when talking about housing construction that you can prevent prevent poverty from existing by prohibiting the kind of housing... Your inventing this fallacy. No one seriously thinks banning tenements will solve homelessness. The goal of banning tenements is to prevent companies from exploiting people and profiting from them -- building tenements actually takes society away from the solution, by wasting land and money that could have been spent on housing. We could house everyone, we have the technology, we have the capital. Requiring that housing to be safe simply is not an impediment to that goal in any way.

falcolas 9y ago

Microhousing doesn't sound like much of a good thing, if I'm honest. It pushes a lot of functionality normally fulfilled by a house (such as entertainment, eating, work, storage, etc.) onto the city at large - you live in the city, and just sleep in the house. If the city isn't prepared to support such externalities, there's going to be a lot of chaos. 2,000+ families living around Bellevue (a suburb of Seattle, not even Seattle proper) doesn't sound great to me. Seattle isn't known for being a great place to spend your day in the park... Seems to me more like a scam to sell more homes at the cost of the city.

closeparen 9y ago
While there may be good arguments in favor of limiting migration into a city, there's this little problem called freedom of movement stemming from the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Constitution [0]. Cities do not get to write immigration policies. It's totally irrelevant that you think an area shouldn't have more people in it. They're coming anyway. Short of a Constitutional amendment, a city can only decide how to house new residents once they arrive. Do they move into new units alongside existing residents, or do they displace those with lower income? Do the new beds cram illegally into existing bedrooms, or do the buildings get taller? If blocking housing construction were an effective way of preventing immigration, that would be one thing. Instead we are all suffering crowded conditions and long commutes because you have cause and effect backwards. Housing units don't cause residents, and the absence of housing units doesn't prevent residents! Residents would, absent your intervention, cause housing units. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_United_States_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_Unit...
zkms 9y ago
> It pushes a lot of functionality normally fulfilled by a house (such as entertainment, eating, work, storage, etc.) onto the city at large - you live in the city, and just sleep in the house. This is plainly false. You don't need much space to have a hot plate / microwave / small refrigerator (for food preparation and eating), a desk (where someone can put a laptop and entertain themselves / work), and some small amount of empty floor for storage. I could do much more than just "sleep" in a 150 square foot unit -- in fact, I'd gladly spend most of my time inside doing any of {sleeping, working, eating, watching stuff on laptop, playing games}. Many other people could as well, and I am sure that most of those people would gladly pay less for rent in exchange for living in such housing. To make what would otherwise be safe (with working sprinklers it's safe -- much safer than most housing in the US, in fact!) and serviceable housing illegal does not serve the interests of anyone -- especially not those who are poor.

maxsilver 9y ago

> building affordable apartments often requires finding "loopholes" and squeezing something through the regulatory process before it gets shut down. No one is against affordable housing. But people are often so desperate for housing that they'll 'choose' to take unsafe / unsanitary / unlivable conditions, such as the tenements some people are pushing as a "solution" to housing. People having to resort to these conditions makes everyone's lives worse (both the residents, and the city with which these residents interact in). This looks exactly like the "tragedy of the commons" the parent poster warned about, and a good use of regulation to prevent that abuse. For the same reason you can't sell a car without seatbelts and airbags, Seattle has prevented the new construction of tenements. That's a win for everyone. Real apartments will get built instead, ones that are still super small, but are actually safe and livable.

closeparen 9y ago
Are you imagining that people who would be forced to live in tenements simply poof out of existence because the tenements are not built? They live 10-15 people to a 2-bedroom apartment. They live in buildings not meant to be dwellings, off the books, out of reach of building inspectors and fire code (see: Oakland Ghost Ship). They live (and piss and shit and shoot up and overdose) on the street, the public transit system, the library, the parks. None of these things are safe, sanitary, or livable, and the negative externalities to the public are enormous. It's a maddening fallacy when talking about housing construction that you can prevent prevent poverty (or tech workers, for that matter) from existing by prohibiting the kind of housing that you think poor people (or techies) would live in.
- maxsilver 9y ago
  > Are you imagining that people who would be forced to live in tenements simply poof out of existence because the tenements are not built? No obviously not. But that doesn't mean we should encourage tenements either. There are still hungry/starving people on the street, but we don't eliminate the FDA and let companies sell tainted meat and dairy to "solve" that problem. Part of living in modern society is some basic minimum standards of quality and safety. Obviously those can be abused, but Seattle simply isn't doing that. 220sqft is a totally reasonable minimum. Requiring every unit have at least a bathroom and a non-bathroom sink is a totally reasonable minimum. > It's a maddening fallacy when talking about housing construction that you can prevent prevent poverty from existing by prohibiting the kind of housing... Your inventing this fallacy. No one seriously thinks banning tenements will solve homelessness. The goal of banning tenements is to prevent companies from exploiting people and profiting from them -- building tenements actually takes society away from the solution, by wasting land and money that could have been spent on housing. We could house everyone, we have the technology, we have the capital. Requiring that housing to be safe simply is not an impediment to that goal in any way.