3 ms·

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 w

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.

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.