4 ms·

How is making certain types of housing illegal just? If people don’t want the combination of location and price that’s on offer they’ll go empty. If they do wan

How is making certain types of housing illegal just? If people don’t want the combination of location and price that’s on offer they’ll go empty. If they do want them depriving them of the choice is unjust. Build more housing is the better solution, like Tokyo, but better for it to be possible for a new grad to live in a shoebox in Manhattan if they want to than not to have the choice at all.

neilv 7y ago
For just one aspect... The city here is allowed to, and does, exercise a lot of control over what can be built, to serve the common good. If the city then uses that power to allow a developer to squeeze every last drop of money they can out of new grads (and others) who are desperate, that wouldn't seem very just stewardship by the city.
- barry-cotter 7y ago
  If their conception of the common good is high property prices sure. If it’s letting people live where they want to then more housing is better. Every capsule apartment a new grad is living in is a larger one further away someone else can live in.
  - neilv 7y ago
    So small apartments might be permitted, but with restrictions on the rents or sale prices that can be charged, for example.
    - barry-cotter 7y ago
      That’s just a restriction on how many will be built. The less profitable an investment is the less likely it is to be made. If the government makes profitably housing people who want housing illegal it can solve the problem by building the housing itself and eating the loss, whether an actual monetary loss or the loss of the better use the money could have been put to. But if the aim is to house people where they want to live, in conditions they want to live in more choice is better. If there’s an aesthetic preference for government provision over private provision that preference is costly both in terms of money and unsatisfied preferences.
      - neilv 7y ago
        Less-profitable than hypothetically possible (in a totally unregulated market/resources) does not necessarily mean unprofitable, nor does it necessarily mean less-profitable than investment options elsewhere.
        barry-cotter 7y ago
        Yes, it does. Money preferentially flows to its most profitable use, where there’s the biggest demand for it. > Less-profitable than hypothetically possible (in a totally unregulated market/resources) does not necessarily mean unprofitable This is true but the less profitable it is the less investment there will be. Less investment in housing either means less housing or worse housing. > nor does it necessarily mean less-profitable than investment options elsewhere. This is not. Whether within a domestic market or internationally there are a plethora of options for where to invest money, from equities and bonds to venture capital to commercial and presidential real estate. If you artificially reduce the profitability of residential real estate you’ll get less of it unless you subsidise it. That’s just the government paying money to solve a problem the government created.
- cgag 7y ago
  Much better they just not be able to afford to move to the city at all.
- BurningFrog 7y ago
  > The city here is allowed to, and does, exercise a lot of control over what can be built, to serve the common good This is, unfortunately, naive. The city will use its power to serve the interests of those who hold power in the city, while of course saying it's for the common good. Typically, those in power do want higher housing prices, and thus promote a housing shortage. The only solution is to not give the city that power.
  - neilv 7y ago
    The solution to the problem you mention is to hold people to the duties of their office. Some cities are better at it than others.
    - icebraining 7y ago
      The only people who can hold mayor to their duties are the ones already living in the city. Everyone who got excluded by these minimum-size policies doesn't get to vote.
  - S4M 7y ago
    > Typically, those in power don't want higher housing prices, and thus promote a housing shortage. I don't get that, wouldn't a housing shortage bring the prices up?
    - barry-cotter 7y ago
      Yes, and those with power are a lot more likely than average to own property. But “those with power” can be a very broad group. Look at California. People want their property prices to go up so they ban new residential building unless it’s only affordable by the rich. You get houses on Palo Alto going for well over ten times the price a similar house would cost in metro areas that allow more and denser building.
      - asveikau 7y ago
        > You get houses on Palo Alto going for well over ten times the price a similar house would cost in metro areas that allow more and denser building Disagree that dense building is the deciding factor in a 10x difference. The home prices being higher than other metro areas reflects the strength of the Bay Area job market. There are plenty of markets less expensive than Palo Alto, some of them allowing more construction and having good jobs, but there is no metro area in the United States 10x cheaper than Palo Alto with the same access to a job market of the same caliber. Example: Seattle is cheaper, builds more and is a tech hub. But it's not 10x cheaper, maybe within 2x last I checked a long time ago. To get a 10x difference you need to sacrifice on another metric, and go to a place with a less booming economy and fewer jobs.
- tehjoker 7y ago
  If you're looking for an article that argues from that perspective, here is one: https://jacobinmag.com/2019/06/universal-rent-control-now https://jacobinmag.com/2019/06/universal-rent-control-now
ghaff 7y ago
So are tenements ok? Multiple people in a room so long as it’s affordable?
- barry-cotter 7y ago
  Affordable, healthy and safe. Barracks and dorms are generally both. Tenement carries a connotation of just being the first so certainly ban unhealthy and unsafe housing but if people choose to live like college students or soldiers why stop them? Better to have a room with a bed, a closet and a door with shared bathroom but there’s nothing morally wrong with sharing a room. I’ve lived six to a room for months in Dublin City centre and I’ve had my own spacious room an hour’s travel from it. As a single man I preferred the first which is why I moved from the suburbs. Living far from where your life is a pain.

neilv 7y ago

For just one aspect... The city here is allowed to, and does, exercise a lot of control over what can be built, to serve the common good. If the city then uses that power to allow a developer to squeeze every last drop of money they can out of new grads (and others) who are desperate, that wouldn't seem very just stewardship by the city.

barry-cotter 7y ago
If their conception of the common good is high property prices sure. If it’s letting people live where they want to then more housing is better. Every capsule apartment a new grad is living in is a larger one further away someone else can live in.
- neilv 7y ago
  So small apartments might be permitted, but with restrictions on the rents or sale prices that can be charged, for example.
  - barry-cotter 7y ago
    That’s just a restriction on how many will be built. The less profitable an investment is the less likely it is to be made. If the government makes profitably housing people who want housing illegal it can solve the problem by building the housing itself and eating the loss, whether an actual monetary loss or the loss of the better use the money could have been put to. But if the aim is to house people where they want to live, in conditions they want to live in more choice is better. If there’s an aesthetic preference for government provision over private provision that preference is costly both in terms of money and unsatisfied preferences.
    - neilv 7y ago
      Less-profitable than hypothetically possible (in a totally unregulated market/resources) does not necessarily mean unprofitable, nor does it necessarily mean less-profitable than investment options elsewhere.
      - barry-cotter 7y ago
        Yes, it does. Money preferentially flows to its most profitable use, where there’s the biggest demand for it. > Less-profitable than hypothetically possible (in a totally unregulated market/resources) does not necessarily mean unprofitable This is true but the less profitable it is the less investment there will be. Less investment in housing either means less housing or worse housing. > nor does it necessarily mean less-profitable than investment options elsewhere. This is not. Whether within a domestic market or internationally there are a plethora of options for where to invest money, from equities and bonds to venture capital to commercial and presidential real estate. If you artificially reduce the profitability of residential real estate you’ll get less of it unless you subsidise it. That’s just the government paying money to solve a problem the government created.
cgag 7y ago
Much better they just not be able to afford to move to the city at all.
BurningFrog 7y ago
> The city here is allowed to, and does, exercise a lot of control over what can be built, to serve the common good This is, unfortunately, naive. The city will use its power to serve the interests of those who hold power in the city, while of course saying it's for the common good. Typically, those in power do want higher housing prices, and thus promote a housing shortage. The only solution is to not give the city that power.
- neilv 7y ago
  The solution to the problem you mention is to hold people to the duties of their office. Some cities are better at it than others.
  - icebraining 7y ago
    The only people who can hold mayor to their duties are the ones already living in the city. Everyone who got excluded by these minimum-size policies doesn't get to vote.
- S4M 7y ago
  > Typically, those in power don't want higher housing prices, and thus promote a housing shortage. I don't get that, wouldn't a housing shortage bring the prices up?
  - barry-cotter 7y ago
    Yes, and those with power are a lot more likely than average to own property. But “those with power” can be a very broad group. Look at California. People want their property prices to go up so they ban new residential building unless it’s only affordable by the rich. You get houses on Palo Alto going for well over ten times the price a similar house would cost in metro areas that allow more and denser building.
    - asveikau 7y ago
      > You get houses on Palo Alto going for well over ten times the price a similar house would cost in metro areas that allow more and denser building Disagree that dense building is the deciding factor in a 10x difference. The home prices being higher than other metro areas reflects the strength of the Bay Area job market. There are plenty of markets less expensive than Palo Alto, some of them allowing more construction and having good jobs, but there is no metro area in the United States 10x cheaper than Palo Alto with the same access to a job market of the same caliber. Example: Seattle is cheaper, builds more and is a tech hub. But it's not 10x cheaper, maybe within 2x last I checked a long time ago. To get a 10x difference you need to sacrifice on another metric, and go to a place with a less booming economy and fewer jobs.
tehjoker 7y ago
If you're looking for an article that argues from that perspective, here is one: https://jacobinmag.com/2019/06/universal-rent-control-now https://jacobinmag.com/2019/06/universal-rent-control-now

ghaff 7y ago

So are tenements ok? Multiple people in a room so long as it’s affordable?

barry-cotter 7y ago
Affordable, healthy and safe. Barracks and dorms are generally both. Tenement carries a connotation of just being the first so certainly ban unhealthy and unsafe housing but if people choose to live like college students or soldiers why stop them? Better to have a room with a bed, a closet and a door with shared bathroom but there’s nothing morally wrong with sharing a room. I’ve lived six to a room for months in Dublin City centre and I’ve had my own spacious room an hour’s travel from it. As a single man I preferred the first which is why I moved from the suburbs. Living far from where your life is a pain.