5 ms·

What is the incentive for a voter who currently owns a home in an expensive market to be in favor of more housing?

troydavis 8y ago
This is arguably the main problem. That said, in some urban areas, renters are the majority. For example, in 2010, 52% of housing units in the City of Seattle were occupied by renters[1], and that’s not counting townhouse/condo owners and supportive home owners. If renters voted the same way on an initiative, they’d set policy. If everyone who doesn’t own a single-family home (renter or not) did so, it would be a landslide. 1: http://www.seattle.gov/opcd/population-and-demographics/about-seattle#housing http://www.seattle.gov/opcd/population-and-demographics/abou...
- AnthonyMouse 8y ago
  > That said, in some urban areas, renters are the majority. For example, in 2010, 52% of housing units in the City of Seattle were occupied by renters[1], and that’s not counting townhouse/condo owners and supportive home owners. The problem with this is that it costs approximately the same amount to rent as it does to own, by the time you take into account interest, taxes, insurance, maintenance, etc. So the people who rent in the expensive area are already the people who can afford to live there, they're just the people who prefer to rent. If you tell them increasing the housing supply will reduce purchasing costs, what do they care? They're not looking to buy. Increasing the housing supply would also tend to reduce rents, but this discussion is usually framed as "people can't afford to buy a home" so many renters may tune out at that point and not comprehend the relationship to rents. Especially when people see propaganda about new developments increasing rents, which only happens if other neighborhoods aren't building enough new housing, because then higher density is valuable when it's scarce. The whole point is to build enough to make it less scarce. Moreover, one of the major reasons people prefer to rent is for mobility, i.e. they expect not to be there in ten years. Meanwhile the people who do want to buy there but can't afford it are the people who currently live somewhere else, which means they don't get a vote.
  - jraby3 8y ago
    Well put. I’d also add that many renters (who prefer mobility) may not necessarily go through the voter registration process in a new city if they don’t expect to stay there more than a couple of years.
blackflame7000 8y ago
This is it in a nutshell. But as the babyboomer population starts to decline their will likely be some supply increase as millenials don’t have the numbers or the wealth to afford the properties that become available at current market prices.
- mc32 8y ago
  Boomers aren’t the only owners of housing. Pretty much becoming an owner (whatever stratum) puts you on the other side.
  - blackflame7000 8y ago
    I was simply stating that because there are more baby boomers than the generations that follow there will inevitably be a surplus of houses since not all have children to pass down to or even if they do the children are likely to sell and split the money
    - mc32 8y ago
      The way I see it, whoever buys from boomers will turn around and become the interested in continuing this trend. In other words it’s not being a boomer or non boomer or being the generation with most housing equity etc but simply being a homeowner.
- almost_usual 8y ago
  Their kids get the houses
dominotw 8y ago
More ppl = more commerce, more jobs, higher property prices. Same reason to support h1b visa.
nashashmi 8y ago
Do voters never think about their own family members or their own kids one day growing up and living next to them? This is a problem when society is becoming less communal and more nimby like.
- rayiner 8y ago
  No—see, eg, all baby boomer policies.
- greesil 8y ago
  I think about this all the time. Where are my kids going to live and work after they graduate college? Certainly not near me.
rdlecler1 8y ago
High housing costs are a tax that gets passed on with higher priced goods and services.
aetherson 8y ago
I own a house in San Bruno and I'd support more development. The benefits of higher housing prices for owners are massively overstated: I wouldn't realize any gain until I moved out of the area, which I probably won't do for decades if ever. In the mean time, the housing market just makes more painful for me to move. I don't want the value of my house to crash down to 10% of it's present cost, but I'd be fine with no appreciation for a couple of decades, or a moderate drop in value.
- uberman 8y ago
  I'm not aware of any intrinsic benefit to a high priced house other than housing being a leveraged investment, but that is clearly a double edged sword. In my opinion. this is the heart of the issue. I want to be clear that there might be many great personal reasons (@raldi has some listed above) to be in favor of more housing stock. However, in the context of the assertion of the original article that voters just don't understand econ 101 supply and demand my feeling is that the majority of homeowners (who are disproportionately voters) understand econ 101 supply and demand perfectly well and that the article does a disservice suggesting that they don't. If I own a highly priced, highly leveraged and, highly demanded investment (such as a house in the bay area), what is my (per the original article) clear as day "econ 101" motivation to help increase supply and thereby reduce the value of this investment? In the context of the original article there is simply no econ 101 incentive for me as a voter to support policies that devalue my investment. Remember, as a highly leveraged investment, a drop in price of just 5% could easily wipe out my entire investment while doing almost nothing to make housing fundamentally more affordable to others. I want to reiterate, there could be many great non-economic motivators for a current homeowner in a high demand market to support more housing. These motivations just fall outside the context of the original article about the unwillingness of voters to understand econ 101 supply and demand.
  - aetherson 8y ago
    Well, I'm sure conversation on this thread is super dead, but: What you're saying all makes sense in the context of house-as-investment. But unlike other investments, you need housing, and if your house's value appreciates, you can't just sell and put that money in something else -- unless you're moving out of the area. You could sell your house and rent, but rents and house prices move roughly similarly, so you don't save much doing so. If you sell and buy another house in the area, you just end up moving your money from one "investment" to another and probably have some tax problems (from Prop 13, in California). "Wiping out my entire investment" is less of a concern when all that means is that you can buy another equivalent house at the new price, and appreciating is less of a benefit when it means you need to buy another equivalent house at the new price. Going actually underwater on your loans is of course bad -- though most people shouldn't be so leveraged that modest drop puts them underwater. And those who are about to move out of the area or downsize, sure, they have much more of a traditional investment mentality. But if you're 20+ years from that? If you might never move away or get a smaller house? The value of your house means very little.
raldi 8y ago
* I want to act locally to help fight climate change (by allowing more people to live in a walkable neighborhood within a car-free commute of great jobs) * I want my friends to stop leaving the city and state * I want my daughter to be able to afford to move out of the house in 20 years * I want the lusher culture population density brings (better museums, more art, more interesting foods and shops, a wider variety of orgs and interest groups for me to join...) * I want my kids schools to be less desperate for teachers, who currently are constantly quitting because they either live here and can't make ends meet or they live far away and burn out on their commute * I care about the plight of others

This is arguably the main problem. That said, in some urban areas, renters are the majority. For example, in 2010, 52% of housing units in the City of Seattle were occupied by renters[1], and that’s not counting townhouse/condo owners and supportive home owners. If renters voted the same way on an initiative, they’d set policy. If everyone who doesn’t own a single-family home (renter or not) did so, it would be a landslide. 1: http://www.seattle.gov/opcd/population-and-demographics/about-seattle#housing http://www.seattle.gov/opcd/population-and-demographics/abou...

AnthonyMouse 8y ago
> That said, in some urban areas, renters are the majority. For example, in 2010, 52% of housing units in the City of Seattle were occupied by renters[1], and that’s not counting townhouse/condo owners and supportive home owners. The problem with this is that it costs approximately the same amount to rent as it does to own, by the time you take into account interest, taxes, insurance, maintenance, etc. So the people who rent in the expensive area are already the people who can afford to live there, they're just the people who prefer to rent. If you tell them increasing the housing supply will reduce purchasing costs, what do they care? They're not looking to buy. Increasing the housing supply would also tend to reduce rents, but this discussion is usually framed as "people can't afford to buy a home" so many renters may tune out at that point and not comprehend the relationship to rents. Especially when people see propaganda about new developments increasing rents, which only happens if other neighborhoods aren't building enough new housing, because then higher density is valuable when it's scarce. The whole point is to build enough to make it less scarce. Moreover, one of the major reasons people prefer to rent is for mobility, i.e. they expect not to be there in ten years. Meanwhile the people who do want to buy there but can't afford it are the people who currently live somewhere else, which means they don't get a vote.
- jraby3 8y ago
  Well put. I’d also add that many renters (who prefer mobility) may not necessarily go through the voter registration process in a new city if they don’t expect to stay there more than a couple of years.

blackflame7000 8y ago

This is it in a nutshell. But as the babyboomer population starts to decline their will likely be some supply increase as millenials don’t have the numbers or the wealth to afford the properties that become available at current market prices.

mc32 8y ago
Boomers aren’t the only owners of housing. Pretty much becoming an owner (whatever stratum) puts you on the other side.
- blackflame7000 8y ago
  I was simply stating that because there are more baby boomers than the generations that follow there will inevitably be a surplus of houses since not all have children to pass down to or even if they do the children are likely to sell and split the money
  - mc32 8y ago
    The way I see it, whoever buys from boomers will turn around and become the interested in continuing this trend. In other words it’s not being a boomer or non boomer or being the generation with most housing equity etc but simply being a homeowner.
almost_usual 8y ago
Their kids get the houses

dominotw 8y ago

More ppl = more commerce, more jobs, higher property prices. Same reason to support h1b visa.

nashashmi 8y ago

Do voters never think about their own family members or their own kids one day growing up and living next to them? This is a problem when society is becoming less communal and more nimby like.

rayiner 8y ago
No—see, eg, all baby boomer policies.
greesil 8y ago
I think about this all the time. Where are my kids going to live and work after they graduate college? Certainly not near me.

rdlecler1 8y ago

High housing costs are a tax that gets passed on with higher priced goods and services.

aetherson 8y ago

I own a house in San Bruno and I'd support more development. The benefits of higher housing prices for owners are massively overstated: I wouldn't realize any gain until I moved out of the area, which I probably won't do for decades if ever. In the mean time, the housing market just makes more painful for me to move. I don't want the value of my house to crash down to 10% of it's present cost, but I'd be fine with no appreciation for a couple of decades, or a moderate drop in value.

uberman 8y ago
I'm not aware of any intrinsic benefit to a high priced house other than housing being a leveraged investment, but that is clearly a double edged sword. In my opinion. this is the heart of the issue. I want to be clear that there might be many great personal reasons (@raldi has some listed above) to be in favor of more housing stock. However, in the context of the assertion of the original article that voters just don't understand econ 101 supply and demand my feeling is that the majority of homeowners (who are disproportionately voters) understand econ 101 supply and demand perfectly well and that the article does a disservice suggesting that they don't. If I own a highly priced, highly leveraged and, highly demanded investment (such as a house in the bay area), what is my (per the original article) clear as day "econ 101" motivation to help increase supply and thereby reduce the value of this investment? In the context of the original article there is simply no econ 101 incentive for me as a voter to support policies that devalue my investment. Remember, as a highly leveraged investment, a drop in price of just 5% could easily wipe out my entire investment while doing almost nothing to make housing fundamentally more affordable to others. I want to reiterate, there could be many great non-economic motivators for a current homeowner in a high demand market to support more housing. These motivations just fall outside the context of the original article about the unwillingness of voters to understand econ 101 supply and demand.
- aetherson 8y ago
  Well, I'm sure conversation on this thread is super dead, but: What you're saying all makes sense in the context of house-as-investment. But unlike other investments, you need housing, and if your house's value appreciates, you can't just sell and put that money in something else -- unless you're moving out of the area. You could sell your house and rent, but rents and house prices move roughly similarly, so you don't save much doing so. If you sell and buy another house in the area, you just end up moving your money from one "investment" to another and probably have some tax problems (from Prop 13, in California). "Wiping out my entire investment" is less of a concern when all that means is that you can buy another equivalent house at the new price, and appreciating is less of a benefit when it means you need to buy another equivalent house at the new price. Going actually underwater on your loans is of course bad -- though most people shouldn't be so leveraged that modest drop puts them underwater. And those who are about to move out of the area or downsize, sure, they have much more of a traditional investment mentality. But if you're 20+ years from that? If you might never move away or get a smaller house? The value of your house means very little.

raldi 8y ago

* I want to act locally to help fight climate change (by allowing more people to live in a walkable neighborhood within a car-free commute of great jobs) * I want my friends to stop leaving the city and state * I want my daughter to be able to afford to move out of the house in 20 years * I want the lusher culture population density brings (better museums, more art, more interesting foods and shops, a wider variety of orgs and interest groups for me to join...) * I want my kids schools to be less desperate for teachers, who currently are constantly quitting because they either live here and can't make ends meet or they live far away and burn out on their commute * I care about the plight of others