4 ms·

It's difficult to fix housing supply because NIMBYs have so much power on local political activity. It's not just a US problem either. In Australia, Sweden, the

by sien 8y ago

It's difficult to fix housing supply because NIMBYs have so much power on local political activity. It's not just a US problem either. In Australia, Sweden, the UK, Germany, France and many other places housing is more expensive than it should be. If you want to do something go and get active in the YIMBY movement. https://www.yimby.wiki/wiki/YIMBY_movement https://www.yimby.wiki/wiki/YIMBY_movement

jahaja 8y ago
NIMBY/YIMBY arguments seem just too convenient an excuse for me. It's almost if one has actively tried to find something that can plausibly explain the housing crisis but does not challenge the status quo of structural/systematic problems in any way shape or form. In Sweden the seemingly prime effect of these movements is to remove democratic influence to the benefit of construction companies, even though that only rarely is the cause of delays, and certainly not the root cause of the housing shortage. And here's an anecdote from Sweden from the early 90s: To get a cheap rental flat in high standard, albeit in a working class neighborhood, my parents were able to walk into the office of the municipal housing company and more or less pick a key from the wall and go take a look at it. If they liked, they got it. These were the days where the state still took an interests in providing housing to its citizens and planned, and built, accordingly. Now there's the market and a housing bubble consisting of too many expensive apartments that few can afford. To now suggest that the state should again start building cheap housing to a population where the middle-class is up to their neck in inflated mortgages is impossible. This is the real NIMBY.
- CryptoPunk 8y ago
  I recommend you look at the economic research on the issue of zoning restrictions on housing supply: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/images/Housing_Development_Toolkit%20f.2.pdf https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/images...
  - jahaja 8y ago
    I'd think it would be good manners to at least provide a summary that puts the report into the discussions context when linking to some pdf report.
    - CryptoPunk 8y ago
      Here's an excerpt from the executive summary: >>Over the past three decades, local barriers to housing development have intensified, particularly in the high-growth metropolitan areas increasingly fueling the national economy. The accumulation of such barriers – including zoning, other land use regulations, and lengthy development approval processes – has reduced the ability of many housing markets to respond to growing demand. The growing severity of undersupplied housing markets is jeopardizing housing affordability for working families, increasing income inequality by reducing less-skilled workers’ access to high-wage labor markets, and stifling GDP growth by driving labor migration away from the most productive regions. Other relevant excerpts: >>Researchers examining proxy measures – including the prevalence of zoning and land use cases in state courts, which correlate strongly with static indices of housing barriers and supply constraint surveys – have found that barriers to housing development increased rapidly from 1970 to 1990, and continue to increase through the present day. 2 ... >>Though popular coverage of these challenges has been most focused on the Bay Area, Seattle, and major East Coast cities, Los Angeles provides a clear illustration of the impact of the primary barrier to development – restrictive zoning. In 1960, Los Angeles was zoned to accommodate 10 million people; after decades of population growth and increased demand, the city is today zoned for only 4.3 million people.9 ... >>In just the last 10 years, the number of very low-income renters paying more than half their income for rent has increased by almost 2.5 million households, to 7.7 million nationwide, in part because barriers to housing development are limiting housing supply.11 Since 1960, the share of renters paying more than 30 percent of their income for rent has more than doubled from 24 percent to 49 percent.12 And over that time, real household income increased by 18 percent, but inflation adjusted rents rose by 64 percent. ... >>A recent study noted that in theoretical models of mobility, economic research suggests our Gross Domestic Product would have been more than 10 percent higher in 2009 if workers and capital had freely moved so that the relative wage distribution remained at its 1964 level. 21 Most of this loss in wages and productivity is caused by increased constraints to housing supply in high- productivity regions, including zoning regulations and other local rules. So to summarize, economists have observed an increase in zoning/land-use restrictions since about 1970. They attribute the rise in the proportion of income consumed by rent to these restrictions on housing supply growth. They conclude that absent zoning and other restrictions on housing supply expansion, the US would have less income inequality and a significantly higher GDP.

by sien 8y ago

jahaja 8y ago

NIMBY/YIMBY arguments seem just too convenient an excuse for me. It's almost if one has actively tried to find something that can plausibly explain the housing crisis but does not challenge the status quo of structural/systematic problems in any way shape or form. In Sweden the seemingly prime effect of these movements is to remove democratic influence to the benefit of construction companies, even though that only rarely is the cause of delays, and certainly not the root cause of the housing shortage. And here's an anecdote from Sweden from the early 90s: To get a cheap rental flat in high standard, albeit in a working class neighborhood, my parents were able to walk into the office of the municipal housing company and more or less pick a key from the wall and go take a look at it. If they liked, they got it. These were the days where the state still took an interests in providing housing to its citizens and planned, and built, accordingly. Now there's the market and a housing bubble consisting of too many expensive apartments that few can afford. To now suggest that the state should again start building cheap housing to a population where the middle-class is up to their neck in inflated mortgages is impossible. This is the real NIMBY.

CryptoPunk 8y ago
I recommend you look at the economic research on the issue of zoning restrictions on housing supply: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/images/Housing_Development_Toolkit%20f.2.pdf https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/images...
- jahaja 8y ago
  I'd think it would be good manners to at least provide a summary that puts the report into the discussions context when linking to some pdf report.
  - CryptoPunk 8y ago
    Here's an excerpt from the executive summary: >>Over the past three decades, local barriers to housing development have intensified, particularly in the high-growth metropolitan areas increasingly fueling the national economy. The accumulation of such barriers – including zoning, other land use regulations, and lengthy development approval processes – has reduced the ability of many housing markets to respond to growing demand. The growing severity of undersupplied housing markets is jeopardizing housing affordability for working families, increasing income inequality by reducing less-skilled workers’ access to high-wage labor markets, and stifling GDP growth by driving labor migration away from the most productive regions. Other relevant excerpts: >>Researchers examining proxy measures – including the prevalence of zoning and land use cases in state courts, which correlate strongly with static indices of housing barriers and supply constraint surveys – have found that barriers to housing development increased rapidly from 1970 to 1990, and continue to increase through the present day. 2 ... >>Though popular coverage of these challenges has been most focused on the Bay Area, Seattle, and major East Coast cities, Los Angeles provides a clear illustration of the impact of the primary barrier to development – restrictive zoning. In 1960, Los Angeles was zoned to accommodate 10 million people; after decades of population growth and increased demand, the city is today zoned for only 4.3 million people.9 ... >>In just the last 10 years, the number of very low-income renters paying more than half their income for rent has increased by almost 2.5 million households, to 7.7 million nationwide, in part because barriers to housing development are limiting housing supply.11 Since 1960, the share of renters paying more than 30 percent of their income for rent has more than doubled from 24 percent to 49 percent.12 And over that time, real household income increased by 18 percent, but inflation adjusted rents rose by 64 percent. ... >>A recent study noted that in theoretical models of mobility, economic research suggests our Gross Domestic Product would have been more than 10 percent higher in 2009 if workers and capital had freely moved so that the relative wage distribution remained at its 1964 level. 21 Most of this loss in wages and productivity is caused by increased constraints to housing supply in high- productivity regions, including zoning regulations and other local rules. So to summarize, economists have observed an increase in zoning/land-use restrictions since about 1970. They attribute the rise in the proportion of income consumed by rent to these restrictions on housing supply growth. They conclude that absent zoning and other restrictions on housing supply expansion, the US would have less income inequality and a significantly higher GDP.