5 ms·

Ah, thank you for the sourcing. I shall read them but I was wondering if you have a response to this critical analysis, "Seattle — A Cautionary Tale for Supply-

Ah, thank you for the sourcing. I shall read them but I was wondering if you have a response to this critical analysis, "Seattle — A Cautionary Tale for Supply-Side Housing Advocates."[1] It notes how Seattle is often cited by deregulation advocates, but that "in spite of decades of indisputably strong development, Seattle’s share of cost-burdened renters has barely budged." And "by overbuilding housing for the wealthy, Seattle has achieved some short-term improvement in affordability for the middle class, at the expense of substantial displacement and continued upward pressure on the most vulnerable." This I think is at the heart of what in SF some call the YIMBY vs. PHIMBY[2] debate. YIMBYs tend to skew towards more privileged techie types (happy to dig up sourcing on this.. I recall the YIMBY national meeting being called overwhlemingly white). Whereas the PHIMBYs or whatever you want to call them, the deeply affordable housing advocates, see flaws in that simplistic trickle-down economics model based on lived experience in working-class neighborhoods undergoing gentrification. [1] https://knock-la.com/seattle-a-cautionary-tale-for-supply-side-housing-advocates-5b4ca5ed6d02 https://knock-la.com/seattle-a-cautionary-tale-for-supply-si... [2] https://yahbayarea.org https://yahbayarea.org or https://twitter.com/YahBayArea https://twitter.com/YahBayArea

irq11 7y ago
Careful, you’re bringing facts to an opinion fight. The parent is wrong, and is cherry-picking data. Seattle rents may have gone down “recently”, but they’ve been amongst the fastest-rising rents in the US until about a year ago. They’re far higher than they were a few years ago, let alone a decade ago. Also, saying that prices are lower than San Francisco is utterly meaningless. San Francisco is a different economy. It was more expensive than Seattle twenty years ago, and it’s more expensive now. You can’t make the comparison without controlling a bunch of variables.
- UnpossibleJim 7y ago
  I'm genuinely confused as to why you're being downvoted. I live in Seattle, having bought a couple of houses in the last 10 years, watching the market pretty carefully and you aren't wrong. This is one of the most expensive markets in the country.... fourth or fifth. It's kind of ridiculous. The "drop" is in the last 3 years after a 12 year steep rise, and it's not even really a drop, more of a leveling off instead of a continued steep incline. A lot of that has to do with over investment in companies buying properties for apartment complexes, on speculation that population growth would continue at a steady rate instead of curve like real world models.
  - shuckles 7y ago
    Starting a comment with a put down like the parent did is not well-received by the community.
    - abalone 7y ago
      I started mine by politely thanking for the sourcing and I still got downvoted. I think there are politically motivated downvoters on this topic.
      - shuckles 7y ago
        You have more reason to be "genuinely confused" than the parent, who I was responding to.
        irq11 7y ago
        The phrase “bringing facts to an opinion fight” is no more or less an “insult” than saying that your argument has no factual basis. People just don’t like to be told that they’re wrong, they really don’t like to be told so in a pithy way, and pearl-clutching provides an easy way to justify censorship.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
shuckles 7y ago
You need to argue the counterfactual. You can build housing and have rents increase because demand was still greater than supply. None of your links show that rents increased more than they would have without building housing.
solidsnack9000 7y ago
I upvoted you, although I disagree with you. You made an argument, deepened the discussion and offered some sources -- it's more than most people do. Regarding the second site that you linked, and the PHIMBY idea in general -- if it's summed up by "housing is a human right", then there is a certain weakness built into it from the start. If you do not have a house, can you sue someone? Can you sue the government, for example? That is an important part of what a right is -- it provides a "cause of action", a basis for suit, when it is abridged. If it doesn't provide that, then it is not a right. Freedom of movement within the United States, guaranteed by the Privileges & Immunities Clause of the Constitution, is a right. When someone writes something like "by overbuilding housing for the wealthy, Seattle has achieved some short-term improvement in affordability for the middle class, at the expense of substantial displacement and continued upward pressure on the most vulnerable.", they seem to be operating from a frame where it is the government's responsibility to provide housing, but it's not clear where the government gets that charter. Not every nice or good thing needs to be effected by government agency. However, respecting the right of people to move in -- to buy or rent property on the same terms as non-residents -- would seem to be completely in line with a broad commitment to the equality of all American citizens, regardless of their place of birth, before the law everywhere in the country.
- abalone 7y ago
  The essential view of PHIMBYs is that government should invest in housing, which is the mechanism by which the postwar generation achieved housing security (HUD had a huge budget). Thanks for the upvote. Allow me to critique your argument. You focus solely on interpreting the term “right” and suggest that it is beyond the charter of government to provide housing, which is just completely and utterly ahistorical.
  - solidsnack9000 7y ago
    When you say my argument is ahistorical, do you mean that in the past, people have generally been able to sue for not having a house? Calling housing a right is extreme and inaccurate.

irq11 7y ago

Careful, you’re bringing facts to an opinion fight. The parent is wrong, and is cherry-picking data. Seattle rents may have gone down “recently”, but they’ve been amongst the fastest-rising rents in the US until about a year ago. They’re far higher than they were a few years ago, let alone a decade ago. Also, saying that prices are lower than San Francisco is utterly meaningless. San Francisco is a different economy. It was more expensive than Seattle twenty years ago, and it’s more expensive now. You can’t make the comparison without controlling a bunch of variables.

UnpossibleJim 7y ago
I'm genuinely confused as to why you're being downvoted. I live in Seattle, having bought a couple of houses in the last 10 years, watching the market pretty carefully and you aren't wrong. This is one of the most expensive markets in the country.... fourth or fifth. It's kind of ridiculous. The "drop" is in the last 3 years after a 12 year steep rise, and it's not even really a drop, more of a leveling off instead of a continued steep incline. A lot of that has to do with over investment in companies buying properties for apartment complexes, on speculation that population growth would continue at a steady rate instead of curve like real world models.
- shuckles 7y ago
  Starting a comment with a put down like the parent did is not well-received by the community.
  - abalone 7y ago
    I started mine by politely thanking for the sourcing and I still got downvoted. I think there are politically motivated downvoters on this topic.
    - shuckles 7y ago
      You have more reason to be "genuinely confused" than the parent, who I was responding to.
      - irq11 7y ago
        The phrase “bringing facts to an opinion fight” is no more or less an “insult” than saying that your argument has no factual basis. People just don’t like to be told that they’re wrong, they really don’t like to be told so in a pithy way, and pearl-clutching provides an easy way to justify censorship.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]

shuckles 7y ago

You need to argue the counterfactual. You can build housing and have rents increase because demand was still greater than supply. None of your links show that rents increased more than they would have without building housing.

solidsnack9000 7y ago

I upvoted you, although I disagree with you. You made an argument, deepened the discussion and offered some sources -- it's more than most people do. Regarding the second site that you linked, and the PHIMBY idea in general -- if it's summed up by "housing is a human right", then there is a certain weakness built into it from the start. If you do not have a house, can you sue someone? Can you sue the government, for example? That is an important part of what a right is -- it provides a "cause of action", a basis for suit, when it is abridged. If it doesn't provide that, then it is not a right. Freedom of movement within the United States, guaranteed by the Privileges & Immunities Clause of the Constitution, is a right. When someone writes something like "by overbuilding housing for the wealthy, Seattle has achieved some short-term improvement in affordability for the middle class, at the expense of substantial displacement and continued upward pressure on the most vulnerable.", they seem to be operating from a frame where it is the government's responsibility to provide housing, but it's not clear where the government gets that charter. Not every nice or good thing needs to be effected by government agency. However, respecting the right of people to move in -- to buy or rent property on the same terms as non-residents -- would seem to be completely in line with a broad commitment to the equality of all American citizens, regardless of their place of birth, before the law everywhere in the country.

abalone 7y ago
The essential view of PHIMBYs is that government should invest in housing, which is the mechanism by which the postwar generation achieved housing security (HUD had a huge budget). Thanks for the upvote. Allow me to critique your argument. You focus solely on interpreting the term “right” and suggest that it is beyond the charter of government to provide housing, which is just completely and utterly ahistorical.
- solidsnack9000 7y ago
  When you say my argument is ahistorical, do you mean that in the past, people have generally been able to sue for not having a house? Calling housing a right is extreme and inaccurate.