4 ms·

The market didn't "Just work," in Seattle. There is a long history of things not going right. The city had to do a lot to get this current housing boom to get g

The market didn't "Just work," in Seattle. There is a long history of things not going right. The city had to do a lot to get this current housing boom to get going, including a lot of subsidization. They also got a lot wrong (no where near enough low-income housing .. and a lot of the decent low income housing requiring you to be below the poverty line -- leaving the middle class in really tough spots paying Amazon employ rent while barely making enough to pay it.) It's still not really working. The homeless problem is still insane. There are still a ton of one unit dwellings that no one is bringing up to code; the ones that use to house the very low income around places like Belltown. Another thing that didn't "just work" was Amazon giving new employees discounts in certain condos. Turns out someone in HR didn't realize these types of deals were illegal, since private groups can't offer housing discounts or subsidizes or it violates various Fair Housing laws.

TulliusCicero 9y ago
> The market didn't "Just work," in Seattle. It is literally illegal to add to the housing supply in most of the city; a majority of Seattle land is zoned exclusively for detached single-family hones.
- BearGoesChirp 9y ago
  I wonder, if you count agents in a market economy as having not just money to spend making rational purchases, but also political power as a sort of alternate currency (represented by a vote each), is NIMBY really a rational market reaction. If you start in a fully free market state, and enough actors combine their political power to limit the market, then that results seems just as important, if not more important, than one where there is a limit placed on the system to prevent such actions. Even the US Constitution, which could be considered a very strong limiter in what combined political power can do on a city, state, or even federal level, can be modified by enough people combining their political power.
  - philipodonnell 9y ago
    I wish more people though this way. If something is a rule then the majority decided it should be that way. If you don't like it, then you are in the minority. If that surprises you, then you may not be accurately measuring the real majorities and minorities, and it would benefit all of to try to understand what the real rules are.
    - 0xB31B1B 9y ago
      Not quite sure what this comment means but it feels like you are saying “these rules exist Because a democratically influenced process came up with them so we shouldn’t change them”, which if true is not great reasoning for the following reasons: 1) things change over time, policies that at one time protected people move on to be things that increase inequality or worsen outcomes. 2) Politics has a long history of excluding less powerful voices. Right now in cities, there is a movement to “re-enfranchise” the people whom have often been ignored, minorities and renters. Often times the will of the people changes because those who were locked out of the decision making process 10/20/30 years ago now hold much more political power and able to influence outcomes. 3) if your bias is “current policy is best policy” then you are biased to favor the voices of the moderately wealthy white home owners who created modern urban land use policy over the past 50 years at the expense of renters and minorities.
    - BearGoesChirp 9y ago
      >If something is a rule then the majority decided it should be that way. Few systems are direct democracies. Isn't it more likely the people decided the rule maker should be who the rule maker is (or makers are) and the rule maker(s) then decided what the law should be. And that is just some of the political systems you can model. Think of like how congress like a <25% approval rating but most of them keep getting voted back in.
    - natalyarostova 9y ago
      There is a field of political economy called collective action, which has been around in its current form for roughly a century now, which aims to study exactly why what you just wrote is so frequently not true. Check it out.
btgeekboy 9y ago
It wasn’t Amazon giving those discounts. It was the apartment companies themselves, and they were often available to employees of any major employer in the area, including Google or Boeing. http://time.com/money/4018717/seattle-rent-discounts-tech/ http://time.com/money/4018717/seattle-rent-discounts-tech/

TulliusCicero 9y ago

> The market didn't "Just work," in Seattle. It is literally illegal to add to the housing supply in most of the city; a majority of Seattle land is zoned exclusively for detached single-family hones.

BearGoesChirp 9y ago
I wonder, if you count agents in a market economy as having not just money to spend making rational purchases, but also political power as a sort of alternate currency (represented by a vote each), is NIMBY really a rational market reaction. If you start in a fully free market state, and enough actors combine their political power to limit the market, then that results seems just as important, if not more important, than one where there is a limit placed on the system to prevent such actions. Even the US Constitution, which could be considered a very strong limiter in what combined political power can do on a city, state, or even federal level, can be modified by enough people combining their political power.
- philipodonnell 9y ago
  I wish more people though this way. If something is a rule then the majority decided it should be that way. If you don't like it, then you are in the minority. If that surprises you, then you may not be accurately measuring the real majorities and minorities, and it would benefit all of to try to understand what the real rules are.
  - 0xB31B1B 9y ago
    Not quite sure what this comment means but it feels like you are saying “these rules exist Because a democratically influenced process came up with them so we shouldn’t change them”, which if true is not great reasoning for the following reasons: 1) things change over time, policies that at one time protected people move on to be things that increase inequality or worsen outcomes. 2) Politics has a long history of excluding less powerful voices. Right now in cities, there is a movement to “re-enfranchise” the people whom have often been ignored, minorities and renters. Often times the will of the people changes because those who were locked out of the decision making process 10/20/30 years ago now hold much more political power and able to influence outcomes. 3) if your bias is “current policy is best policy” then you are biased to favor the voices of the moderately wealthy white home owners who created modern urban land use policy over the past 50 years at the expense of renters and minorities.
  - BearGoesChirp 9y ago
    >If something is a rule then the majority decided it should be that way. Few systems are direct democracies. Isn't it more likely the people decided the rule maker should be who the rule maker is (or makers are) and the rule maker(s) then decided what the law should be. And that is just some of the political systems you can model. Think of like how congress like a <25% approval rating but most of them keep getting voted back in.
  - natalyarostova 9y ago
    There is a field of political economy called collective action, which has been around in its current form for roughly a century now, which aims to study exactly why what you just wrote is so frequently not true. Check it out.

btgeekboy 9y ago

It wasn’t Amazon giving those discounts. It was the apartment companies themselves, and they were often available to employees of any major employer in the area, including Google or Boeing. http://time.com/money/4018717/seattle-rent-discounts-tech/ http://time.com/money/4018717/seattle-rent-discounts-tech/