5 ms·

I’m really not an elitist person, so that’s a painful representation. But, anyway, I’m willing to change my opinion. Just argue your case more persuasively. Ho

by afpx 9y ago

I’m really not an elitist person, so that’s a painful representation. But, anyway, I’m willing to change my opinion. Just argue your case more persuasively. How is adding more supply going to fix this? For example, if on any given day 20 people want to buy in my neighborhood (just guessing), how much supply would have to be built to even reduce prices? Seems like it would have to be massive. How do you prevent over-supply from being built? How do you ensure that the housing is of suitable quality? By the way, I’m not the type of person that would oppose denser development. I just would prefer it be built slowly, in a controlled manner only because I’ve witnessed first hand developers destroying areas for quick profits. For example, a friend recently visited and used airbnb to lodge at one of those newish buildings on 9th street. The building looks great on the outside. But, inside, the units looked and felt like what I imagine Soviet block style buildings would be like.

austenallred 9y ago
The reason prices are so high in the area you live is that so few people want to leave, so the available housing is a tiny percentage of the total housing that is being bid on, compounded by the fact that you can rent out your house for 4x you’re mortgage, so why sell? Adding more housing alleviates that pressure significantly. It’s been years and next to nothing has been built in the vast majority of the Bay Area - housing has decreased in some parts. It’s not a rapid development concern, it’s a no development concern.
- Nuzzerino 9y ago
  I saw a recent figure that around half of residents want to leave. Where did you get the idea that few people want to leave?
  - austenallred 9y ago
    The reason they want to leave is because they can’t afford to stay. The number of homes for sale is orders of magnitude lower than comparable areas.
Decade 9y ago
Point by point: > How is adding more supply going to fix this? Adding supply helps because we now have a situation in California where there are many more jobs than homes for people to live. Conservatives keep saying people should work hard, right? Then they need to move where there are jobs. Liberals keep saying people should have access to dignity and a social safety net, right? Then they need to move where there is a friendly political climate and a robust economy to support that safety net. Being a “sanctuary state” is no good when refugees can’t afford to live here. The big debate is over how to increase supply. The number of homes is increasing, but it is increasing much too slowly. That’s why even with visible construction, prices still increase. But even a slow increase of luxury homes helps, slightly, because every rich person buying a luxury home is a rich person not outbidding a middle-class family for a run-down hovel. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQGQU0T6NBc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQGQU0T6NBc > 20 people want to buy in my neighborhood, how much supply would have to be built to even reduce prices? It’s a region-wide market. But on a simple level, yes, you’d need 20 homes to stabilize prices. That seems more humane to me than forcing people to double-up or live in tents. > How do you prevent over-supply from being built? You don’t. You need like 10% vacancy, ± some amount, to have a healthy amount of wiggle room for people to move, in case they get a baby or need to fumigate the house or something. In practice, developers have teams of economists working to make sure they don’t build too much. If the local government makes development excessively difficult and expensive, then they will develop only a limited supply of luxury apartments, unless they get some subsidy. If the local government makes development easy, then they will make profits building for the vast middle class. We should make developer profit margins align with what we need as a society. > How do you ensure that the housing is of suitable quality? Competition and building codes. That’s how we ensure suitable quality for everything else. Note that building codes necessarily mean marginal housing is excluded, so they need to be balanced with our ability to subsidize. Otherwise, you end up with luxury housing in a sea of tents. We should also be much more willing to destroy existing homes. This urge to preserve the exterior of every existing home is destroying the fabric of society. I call that, “The literal façade of neighborhood character destroying the neighborhood’s character.” https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/6/12/the-power-of-growing-incrementally https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/6/12/the-power-of-g... > I’ve witnessed first hand developers destroying areas for quick profits. So we need to make competition easier. Experience has shown that trying to control the process in a central government manner just tilts the playing field in favor of huge well-connected firms that can absorb the overhead of dealing with endless processes, and disenfranchises small local developers. I strongly disagree with restricting the process to build slowly. We have had 50 years of building slowly when we should have been building quickly. Some places should build slowly, but when the economy is changing, then building quickly should be possible. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/06/upshot/what-happened-to-the-american-boomtown.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/06/upshot/what-happened-to-t...
rayiner 9y ago
> How do you prevent over-supply from being built? How do you ensure that the housing is of suitable quality? The market ensures those things.
Lazare 9y ago
> How is adding more supply going to fix this? How could it not? > How do you prevent over-supply from being built? How do you ensure that the housing is of suitable quality? How do we prevent the over-supply of anything? How do we ensure the quality of anything in the market? Housing is not a unique good. This is a solved problem. > a friend recently visited and used airbnb to lodge at one of those newish buildings on 9th street. The building looks great on the outside. But, inside, the units looked and felt like what I imagine Soviet block style buildings would be like. And what's the vacancy rate on that building? Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's not serving a market niche.

by afpx 9y ago

austenallred 9y ago

The reason prices are so high in the area you live is that so few people want to leave, so the available housing is a tiny percentage of the total housing that is being bid on, compounded by the fact that you can rent out your house for 4x you’re mortgage, so why sell? Adding more housing alleviates that pressure significantly. It’s been years and next to nothing has been built in the vast majority of the Bay Area - housing has decreased in some parts. It’s not a rapid development concern, it’s a no development concern.

Nuzzerino 9y ago
I saw a recent figure that around half of residents want to leave. Where did you get the idea that few people want to leave?
- austenallred 9y ago
  The reason they want to leave is because they can’t afford to stay. The number of homes for sale is orders of magnitude lower than comparable areas.

Decade 9y ago

Point by point: > How is adding more supply going to fix this? Adding supply helps because we now have a situation in California where there are many more jobs than homes for people to live. Conservatives keep saying people should work hard, right? Then they need to move where there are jobs. Liberals keep saying people should have access to dignity and a social safety net, right? Then they need to move where there is a friendly political climate and a robust economy to support that safety net. Being a “sanctuary state” is no good when refugees can’t afford to live here. The big debate is over how to increase supply. The number of homes is increasing, but it is increasing much too slowly. That’s why even with visible construction, prices still increase. But even a slow increase of luxury homes helps, slightly, because every rich person buying a luxury home is a rich person not outbidding a middle-class family for a run-down hovel. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQGQU0T6NBc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQGQU0T6NBc > 20 people want to buy in my neighborhood, how much supply would have to be built to even reduce prices? It’s a region-wide market. But on a simple level, yes, you’d need 20 homes to stabilize prices. That seems more humane to me than forcing people to double-up or live in tents. > How do you prevent over-supply from being built? You don’t. You need like 10% vacancy, ± some amount, to have a healthy amount of wiggle room for people to move, in case they get a baby or need to fumigate the house or something. In practice, developers have teams of economists working to make sure they don’t build too much. If the local government makes development excessively difficult and expensive, then they will develop only a limited supply of luxury apartments, unless they get some subsidy. If the local government makes development easy, then they will make profits building for the vast middle class. We should make developer profit margins align with what we need as a society. > How do you ensure that the housing is of suitable quality? Competition and building codes. That’s how we ensure suitable quality for everything else. Note that building codes necessarily mean marginal housing is excluded, so they need to be balanced with our ability to subsidize. Otherwise, you end up with luxury housing in a sea of tents. We should also be much more willing to destroy existing homes. This urge to preserve the exterior of every existing home is destroying the fabric of society. I call that, “The literal façade of neighborhood character destroying the neighborhood’s character.” https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/6/12/the-power-of-growing-incrementally https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/6/12/the-power-of-g... > I’ve witnessed first hand developers destroying areas for quick profits. So we need to make competition easier. Experience has shown that trying to control the process in a central government manner just tilts the playing field in favor of huge well-connected firms that can absorb the overhead of dealing with endless processes, and disenfranchises small local developers. I strongly disagree with restricting the process to build slowly. We have had 50 years of building slowly when we should have been building quickly. Some places should build slowly, but when the economy is changing, then building quickly should be possible. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/06/upshot/what-happened-to-the-american-boomtown.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/06/upshot/what-happened-to-t...

rayiner 9y ago

> How do you prevent over-supply from being built? How do you ensure that the housing is of suitable quality? The market ensures those things.

Lazare 9y ago

> How is adding more supply going to fix this? How could it not? > How do you prevent over-supply from being built? How do you ensure that the housing is of suitable quality? How do we prevent the over-supply of anything? How do we ensure the quality of anything in the market? Housing is not a unique good. This is a solved problem. > a friend recently visited and used airbnb to lodge at one of those newish buildings on 9th street. The building looks great on the outside. But, inside, the units looked and felt like what I imagine Soviet block style buildings would be like. And what's the vacancy rate on that building? Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's not serving a market niche.