6 ms·
It is perplexing to me why the burden of proof was ever placed on "increasing supply decreases prices" when the mechanism by which rent control + limiting const
by jjxw 9y ago
It is perplexing to me why the burden of proof was ever placed on "increasing supply decreases prices" when the mechanism by which rent control + limiting construction is supposed to benefit anyone besides those already occupying those units is totally unclear.
I don't even think it's "ought" vs "does" - it's more NIMBY interests being more ingrained into local politics allowing them to somehow gaslight everyone into thinking the laws of supply and demand don't apply to housing.
- meric 9y agoThe ones who occupy the residences have the votes...
- hkmurakami 9y agoDon't renters also have votes? If so then it's a matter of ratio and willingness to mobilize/fund efforts.
- notatoad 9y agoNot direct votes. The renters can vote for representatives, but city councils are overwhelmingly made up of homeowners. (and a disturbingly high proportion of property developers)
- kevinburke 9y agoRenters vote but tend to be under-represented on City Councils and such because they are a) younger, b) have less money, c) move more often than people with homes. Renters don't vote as regularly as homeowners.
- acover 9y agoRenters are the minority. 70% of households own their home in Canada.
- santaclaus 9y agoUsing the San Francisco example from the article, renters are 62.5% of all households [1]. [1] http://www.bayareacensus.ca.gov/counties/SanFranciscoCounty.htm http://www.bayareacensus.ca.gov/counties/SanFranciscoCounty....
- kazinator 9y agod) If a place has renters that don't have their own mailbox, it's possible that only the owner will get voter registration mail.
- hkmurakami 9y agoSincere question: is this a bug or a feature?
- leetcrew 9y agofeature imo. it doesn't seem inherently wrong that the long term residents should have more say than people who may just be passing through. that said, the degree of difference could still be very inappropriate.
- leggomylibro 9y agoYeah, it's not about economics or politics at all. People who live in an area want policies that will benefit them at the expense of newcomers, full stop. And when you concentrate value and therefore power in those existing landowners to an extreme degree, you get a political feedback loop strong enough to overpower something as trivial as reality. After all, the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent.
- JPKab 9y agoHere in the Denver area, we have a lot of people moving here for good jobs, strong economy, etc. The locals bitch and moan endlessly. A lady the other night at a dinner party was, in the same conversation, complaining about the "high-density" (townhouses, but she acted as if they were high-rises) housing being built in the area, and moved on to whining about how her daughter was priced out of a home in the area. I stopped myself.
- breischl 9y agoI can absolutely believe that would happen. Also interesting to watch the debate around conditional removal of the parking requirements for new builds. You see people that complain about lack of affordable housing, but also demand a parking lot/structure for every new building - these things are in conflict. I do understand the bitching & moaning. I remember, and miss, the days when there wasn't a standing jam on I-25 every single Saturday, you could show up at a trailhead later than 8 AM and actually find parking, or rent a nice apartment in Wash Park for $600. But then I'm an immigrant too, so I don't have much moral authority to tell the more-recent immigrants to GTFO.