8 ms·

Let's just not even talk about the fact that regulation is the reason why housing is scarce, let's just assume California is 100% at capacity. How the hell does

Let's just not even talk about the fact that regulation is the reason why housing is scarce, let's just assume California is 100% at capacity. How the hell does rent control increase turnabout? It just let's people who got in at the right time have their status as a resident enforced indefinitely, when there are plenty of people who are willing and able to pay far more in order to live there.

jackvalentine 7y ago
> Let's just not even talk about the fact that regulation is the reason why housing is scarce, let's just assume California is 100% at capacity. AKA ignore the entire foundation of the previous poster's point? Edit: upon re-reading your comment I think maybe you don't know what the phrase 'Turnabout is fair play.' means. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/turnabout_is_fair_play https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/turnabout_is_fair_play
- dgzl 7y ago
  Thanks for that, I didn't know this term. However I disagree with the idea that two wrongs make a right. Forcing the suffering around like that just creates more problems than it's worth.
  - jackvalentine 7y ago
    In this case two wrongs may not make a right, but at least it shares some pain with the rent-seeking property owning class and may in time cause them to accept change. It's a bit fatalistic but if we're going down anyway, we're going down together!
    - dgzl 7y ago
      I hate that mentality. It achieves nothing good in the long run.
    - sgc 7y ago
      If they are making less money, they certainly won't allow more construction to deflate prices even further. Rent is already below mortgage in California, so I am not sure what kind of deal people are looking for. As others have said here in various ways, it seems more like lashing out at someone because it sucks life is so expensive where you live rather than dealing with the root causes.
      - jackvalentine 7y ago
        How would you deal with the root causes?
        AnthonyMouse 7y ago
        Impose relaxed zoning rules at the state level instead of imposing rent control there.
        jackvalentine 7y ago
        I would completely agree with that, but for some reason it isn't as politically do-able as this rent control legislation was.
        AnthonyMouse 7y ago
        > I would completely agree with that, but for some reason it isn't as politically do-able as this rent control legislation was. The reason is that landlords know exactly what rent control does. Landlords know that the tenants with the strongest interest in local housing costs are the people who already live there and plan to continue to do so indefinitely. Rent control is a method of buying them off without actually solving the problem in general, so that overall rents and housing costs remain high but the subset of people most likely to be politically active in doing something to correct that gets a bribe to stop objecting while overall housing costs continue to rise faster than inflation. What it is, then, is not a step on the road to a real solution, it's a roadblock preventing that from happening by weakening opposition to the status quo by just enough that no actually effective reforms can be enacted.
human20190310 7y ago
It hurts the owners who would be receiving the wealthy newcomers' money. It doesn't solve anything directly, but it's an attack on the prosperity of the people who are maintaining artificial restrictions on new construction. A laissez-faire approach to both construction and rent would probably be a better option. But that's already not happening, and it's not going to happen without pressuring homeowners and landlords to stop opposing construction.
- um_ya 7y ago
  Do you really expect a place like California to reduce regulations? Their solution is a new regulation!
- dgzl 7y ago
  Construction isn't easy anymore. we've taxed and regulated it into a luxury.
  - ravenstine 7y ago
    Lots of developers choose to build luxury buildings because it can take several years for the construction to be approved. We could build more starter homes like we used to, but it's hardly worth it for developers.
  - dcolkitt 7y ago
    Maybe, but construction may not even be necessary. Shipping containers can now be easily retrofitted into stylish apartments. They can easily be stacked eight stories tall. 95% of the work can be done in overseas factories and is subject to the same globally competitive downward price pressure as every other manufactured good. Build them in Shenzen at a wholesale cost of $30,000 per pod, ship them to San Franciso for $2000, stack and install them at a cost of $8000. At 320 square feet, that's $120 per square foot. The same cost as new homes in rural Texas. All the California legislature needs to do is pass a law zoning everywhere in the state for multi-story shipping container apartments. Then watch prices plummet. Even for single family regular construction homes, because the shipping container apartments will suck so much demand out of the market.
WWLink 7y ago
I highly doubt that. At least in LA county, this place was built up in a giant friggin profit-motivated hurry. Now, if we're talking about planned cities built in the 80s in orange county, maybe we have a point! Maybe. SF has a similar story of sorts. Building code regulations were heavily relaxed after the 1906 earthquake in fear that people wouldn't rebuild otherwise. Businesses will build whatever is most profitable. If it's more profitable to de-regulate and unzone everything, then they would be lobbying like hell to get that.
nradov 7y ago
Many parts of California are already beyond 100% capacity for certain pieces of infrastructure like transportation, schools, water, and sewers. So I only support more housing in those areas if building permits are directly coupled with equivalent infrastructure upgrades.
- sgc 7y ago
  There are places in California where infrastructure can't help. There is just not enough water for more people.
  - labster 7y ago
    That's not really true except perhaps on the shallowest level. There's a lot of environmental issues, pre-1914 water rights, short-term climate issues like ENSO and MJO, and crop choices that have caused California to experience water shortages. Maybe in some cases we can put crops under solar panels to save water[0], or reclaim more water through toilet-to-tap programs. You know, through infrastructure. Reductionist statements like yours never really reflect any real-world policy environment. The real world is messy and complicated. [0]: https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/09/crops-under-solar-panels-can-be-a-win-win/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/09/crops-under-solar-pa...
  - tbihl 7y ago
    To push in a different direction, there isn't enough water for more people while keeping the amount and types of agriculture in California constant. Prioritize residential water use over agricultural rather than aggressively doing the reverse, and you'd probably see improvement. Singapore and Hong Kong are very strong arguments to me against the idea that California couldn't handle more.
- 0xB31B1B 7y ago
  Lucky for us, none of these “at capacity” areas are in high cost metros like LA, San Diego or the Bay Area
  - 7y ago
guelo 7y ago
Getting in at the right time is a big part of free markets and capitalism. It's the same as someone complaining that Zukerberg or Henry Ford just got in at the right time and didn't deserve their wealth.

jackvalentine 7y ago

> Let's just not even talk about the fact that regulation is the reason why housing is scarce, let's just assume California is 100% at capacity. AKA ignore the entire foundation of the previous poster's point? Edit: upon re-reading your comment I think maybe you don't know what the phrase 'Turnabout is fair play.' means. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/turnabout_is_fair_play https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/turnabout_is_fair_play

dgzl 7y ago
Thanks for that, I didn't know this term. However I disagree with the idea that two wrongs make a right. Forcing the suffering around like that just creates more problems than it's worth.
- jackvalentine 7y ago
  In this case two wrongs may not make a right, but at least it shares some pain with the rent-seeking property owning class and may in time cause them to accept change. It's a bit fatalistic but if we're going down anyway, we're going down together!
  - dgzl 7y ago
    I hate that mentality. It achieves nothing good in the long run.
  - sgc 7y ago
    If they are making less money, they certainly won't allow more construction to deflate prices even further. Rent is already below mortgage in California, so I am not sure what kind of deal people are looking for. As others have said here in various ways, it seems more like lashing out at someone because it sucks life is so expensive where you live rather than dealing with the root causes.
    - jackvalentine 7y ago
      How would you deal with the root causes?
      - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
        Impose relaxed zoning rules at the state level instead of imposing rent control there.
        jackvalentine 7y ago
        I would completely agree with that, but for some reason it isn't as politically do-able as this rent control legislation was.
        AnthonyMouse 7y ago
        > I would completely agree with that, but for some reason it isn't as politically do-able as this rent control legislation was. The reason is that landlords know exactly what rent control does. Landlords know that the tenants with the strongest interest in local housing costs are the people who already live there and plan to continue to do so indefinitely. Rent control is a method of buying them off without actually solving the problem in general, so that overall rents and housing costs remain high but the subset of people most likely to be politically active in doing something to correct that gets a bribe to stop objecting while overall housing costs continue to rise faster than inflation. What it is, then, is not a step on the road to a real solution, it's a roadblock preventing that from happening by weakening opposition to the status quo by just enough that no actually effective reforms can be enacted.

human20190310 7y ago

It hurts the owners who would be receiving the wealthy newcomers' money. It doesn't solve anything directly, but it's an attack on the prosperity of the people who are maintaining artificial restrictions on new construction. A laissez-faire approach to both construction and rent would probably be a better option. But that's already not happening, and it's not going to happen without pressuring homeowners and landlords to stop opposing construction.

um_ya 7y ago
Do you really expect a place like California to reduce regulations? Their solution is a new regulation!
dgzl 7y ago
Construction isn't easy anymore. we've taxed and regulated it into a luxury.
- ravenstine 7y ago
  Lots of developers choose to build luxury buildings because it can take several years for the construction to be approved. We could build more starter homes like we used to, but it's hardly worth it for developers.
- dcolkitt 7y ago
  Maybe, but construction may not even be necessary. Shipping containers can now be easily retrofitted into stylish apartments. They can easily be stacked eight stories tall. 95% of the work can be done in overseas factories and is subject to the same globally competitive downward price pressure as every other manufactured good. Build them in Shenzen at a wholesale cost of $30,000 per pod, ship them to San Franciso for $2000, stack and install them at a cost of $8000. At 320 square feet, that's $120 per square foot. The same cost as new homes in rural Texas. All the California legislature needs to do is pass a law zoning everywhere in the state for multi-story shipping container apartments. Then watch prices plummet. Even for single family regular construction homes, because the shipping container apartments will suck so much demand out of the market.

WWLink 7y ago

I highly doubt that. At least in LA county, this place was built up in a giant friggin profit-motivated hurry. Now, if we're talking about planned cities built in the 80s in orange county, maybe we have a point! Maybe. SF has a similar story of sorts. Building code regulations were heavily relaxed after the 1906 earthquake in fear that people wouldn't rebuild otherwise. Businesses will build whatever is most profitable. If it's more profitable to de-regulate and unzone everything, then they would be lobbying like hell to get that.

nradov 7y ago

Many parts of California are already beyond 100% capacity for certain pieces of infrastructure like transportation, schools, water, and sewers. So I only support more housing in those areas if building permits are directly coupled with equivalent infrastructure upgrades.

sgc 7y ago
There are places in California where infrastructure can't help. There is just not enough water for more people.
- labster 7y ago
  That's not really true except perhaps on the shallowest level. There's a lot of environmental issues, pre-1914 water rights, short-term climate issues like ENSO and MJO, and crop choices that have caused California to experience water shortages. Maybe in some cases we can put crops under solar panels to save water[0], or reclaim more water through toilet-to-tap programs. You know, through infrastructure. Reductionist statements like yours never really reflect any real-world policy environment. The real world is messy and complicated. [0]: https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/09/crops-under-solar-panels-can-be-a-win-win/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/09/crops-under-solar-pa...
- tbihl 7y ago
  To push in a different direction, there isn't enough water for more people while keeping the amount and types of agriculture in California constant. Prioritize residential water use over agricultural rather than aggressively doing the reverse, and you'd probably see improvement. Singapore and Hong Kong are very strong arguments to me against the idea that California couldn't handle more.
0xB31B1B 7y ago
Lucky for us, none of these “at capacity” areas are in high cost metros like LA, San Diego or the Bay Area
- 7y ago

guelo 7y ago

Getting in at the right time is a big part of free markets and capitalism. It's the same as someone complaining that Zukerberg or Henry Ford just got in at the right time and didn't deserve their wealth.