4 ms·

> If you could just put up housing on land you own and charge however much people will pay for it, this housing crisis would quickly be gone! It's not that sim

> If you could just put up housing on land you own and charge however much people will pay for it, this housing crisis would quickly be gone! It's not that simple. Rapidly increasing the housing supply has all kinds of effects on communities: * Decreasing the value of nearby homes (supply and demand) * Increasing traffic and strain on community services like schools * Environmental impact * Rapidly changing the demographic and possibly culture of the area Zoning laws and the permit process exist to help ensure safe buildings but also to help protect the home value of existing residents. This makes sense in communities with the infrastructure to support it though and we definitely should be looking into ways to safely house everyone.

PlasticTank 7y ago
> Decreasing the value of nearby homes People often overlook this point way too quickly, they don't consider people with mortgages, if you saved up for a house and purchased with a mortgage then when the flood gates are opened and your house value drops, you now owe more than your house is worth, not a good position to be in.
- sneak 7y ago
  Poor investment decisions should not be insured by your neighbors and local government.
- ryanmercer 7y ago
  Historically, homes weren't meant to be purchased for life for the vast majority of people. In the past few decades people have got in the mindset "I'm going to live here for at least 2 years, I'll buy a house" and then buy, sell, buy, sell, buy sell "Hey, property values are up 30%, time to sell and buy a bigger house!" or "Oooh such and such city/neighborhood sounds cool I'm bored with this city/neighborhood, time to sell!" type behavior. If people would go back to purchasing homes with the full intention of staying there for decades, this wouldn't be an issue for most people.
zozbot234 7y ago
Increased density tends to go together with higher real-estate values, not lower ones. (What it does is lower demand for real-estate elsewhere, as the high-density area becomes more desirable due to its better amenities.) And it makes it easier to provide "community services" like mass transit, that obviate increased traffic.
colordrops 7y ago
Other than environmental impact, I don't see why any of those bullet points should be protected by law.
BurningFrog 7y ago
> Decreasing the value of nearby homes (supply and demand) Or rephrased: "Making housing affordable". I mean you're right, but this is the entire point of building more housing!
- everdev 7y ago
  It makes housing affordable for new homeowners, but if prices drop rapidly existing homeowners can owe more than their home is worth. That's why it's not as simple as "build more affordable housing", not everyone wins if it's done too fast. While we need to provide affordable housing there are reasonable economic / environmental / community reasons why some small towns don't want it in their own backyard.
  - Red_Leaves_Flyy 7y ago
    That's how cars economics work. Homes are depreciating assets. They need expensive repairs and renovations throughout their life. Modern homes are designed to last a few decades. Why are capital holders entitled to guranteed capital returns when their neighbors sleep in excrement on the streets? I see your point, so please don't accuse me of missing it. However comparing an underwater loan to living on the streets is absurd. If the house isn't worth the mortgage file bankruptcy and move on with your life. If you're living on the streets the chances of getting another chance are razor thin. We all should take a hard look at our privilege before we compare the pains of bankruptcy to the immediately life threatening hellscape that is homelessness.
    - everdev 7y ago
      Affordable housing and homeless shelters are two different things. I doubt homeless shelters produce this effect on existing home prices. And yes, telling a hard working middle class family with kids to just declare bankruptcy and move on is a big deal and worth examining the impact before you create policies that make that a real possibility.
      - Red_Leaves_Flyy 7y ago
beatgammit 7y ago
> strain on community services like schools Public schools take forever to build because they need to get a bond approved, procure land, find a builder, staff it, etc. If Washington in general and Seattle in particular were more open to charter schools, there's a better chance of schools keeping up with demand. Additionally, if Washington allowed a voucher system (it's been a while since I checked, but I'm pretty sure it's not allowed), private schools could also pick up the slack. > rapidly changing the demographic and possibly culture of the area Is that a bad thing? I'm okay with zoning laws in general, but for it to work, the city needs to be open to rapid changes in zoning.
caconym_ 7y ago
Rapidly increasing the housing supply in a way that has these knock-on effects is only possible if demand already far outstrips supply. So really the problem isn't that these things will happen—it's that laws have been protecting wealthy "communities" for so long already that the whole thing is upside-down and we risk unleashing chaos simply by satisfying the demand for housing. The solution is to get our heads around the fact that people need affordable places to live, and work toward satisfying that demand as quickly as reasonably possible without completely overloading services or putting too many homeowners on the edge upside-down on their mortgages. Unfortunately, so much damage has already been done that this will not be easy, but it will only get harder as governments continue to shelter the wealthy at the expense of everybody else and local economies in general. Oh, and hand-wringing about changing demographics and culture is not helping. Change happens. Integration is necessary.
- everdev 7y ago
  > Oh, and hand-wringing about changing demographics and culture is not helping. Change happens. Integration is necessary. Culture matters to a lot of people. Why do you like one town versus another? Maybe the weather, maybe the jobs, but probably also because of the people, the shops, the architecture, the parks, etc. The later are all a function of culture. Some of the most unique cities are ones with a strong identity. If you take an agricultural town with lots of great festivals, open space and farm to table restaurants and basically make it an affordable housing suburb for the nearby big cities, it's not an easy win/win. You'll need to take that open space and popup some fast food restaurants to feed the demand. Something is lost culturally in that process and it's worth examining rather than saying it's inevitable or necessary.
  - caconym_ 7y ago
    Culture is made of and by people, and when those people are spending four hours in their cars every day getting to and from work or working themselves to the bone with multiple jobs just to afford a place to live, you're going to have a whole lot less of it. Fetishizing yesterday's culture is a poor substitute.
Aloha 7y ago
The people are moving there whether you like it or not. Seattle has had 20 years of almost continuous growth, with little housing expansion, and almost no affordable units (compared to growth. Yet, it has this idea, that if we ignore the problem it'll just go away. Realistically, every city needs to accept that it is not an ocean liner, and cannot pull up the gangplanks and go "oh, sorry, we're full now, maybe you should try Portland? best of luck to you!"
- quotemstr 7y ago
  > Seattle has had 20 years of almost continuous growth, with little housing expansion False. "Seattle not only has more cranes than any other major city in the country, it’s by a landslide—the city with the next-highest crane count is Chicago, with 40." https://seattle.curbed.com/2018/7/24/17608278/seattle-construction-crane-count-report https://seattle.curbed.com/2018/7/24/17608278/seattle-constr... > almost no affordable units Rents have actually declined over the past few years, and housing outside the urban core is affordable. Not everyone needs to live in SLU. > if we ignore the problem it'll just go away. If you just stop interfering with the market, the market will fix your problem for you.
  - Aloha 7y ago
    Regionally, we've had a couple thousand high end luxury units built, but no great growth, to keep up with growth we need an order of magnitude more housing then that. There has been almost no growth of rental housing outside the downtown core. My rent more than doubled from 2012, to 2015, and then went up 10% a year thereafter - you are mostly correct, for one year in there my rent didn't go up - then the northward climb began again in earnest. I was living for most of that in what most would call affordable housing. The market probably would do its job and solve the issue, provided we didn't make it so dang hard to actually build anything in the City of Seattle.
    - quotemstr 7y ago
      > The market probably would do its job and solve the issue, provided we didn't make it so dang hard to actually build anything in the City of Seattle. With you there. But compared to the Bay Area, Seattle is practically permissive.
ryanmercer 7y ago
>Decreasing the value of nearby homes (supply and demand) So, instead of flipping your house after 2-5 years for 5x what you paid for it, you'll have to stay in it for 10-50 years and only get 2-3x what you paid for it?
tathougies 7y ago
Repeat after me: it is not the governments job to insure every persons individual investments maintain their value.

PlasticTank 7y ago

> Decreasing the value of nearby homes People often overlook this point way too quickly, they don't consider people with mortgages, if you saved up for a house and purchased with a mortgage then when the flood gates are opened and your house value drops, you now owe more than your house is worth, not a good position to be in.

sneak 7y ago
Poor investment decisions should not be insured by your neighbors and local government.
ryanmercer 7y ago
Historically, homes weren't meant to be purchased for life for the vast majority of people. In the past few decades people have got in the mindset "I'm going to live here for at least 2 years, I'll buy a house" and then buy, sell, buy, sell, buy sell "Hey, property values are up 30%, time to sell and buy a bigger house!" or "Oooh such and such city/neighborhood sounds cool I'm bored with this city/neighborhood, time to sell!" type behavior. If people would go back to purchasing homes with the full intention of staying there for decades, this wouldn't be an issue for most people.

zozbot234 7y ago

Increased density tends to go together with higher real-estate values, not lower ones. (What it does is lower demand for real-estate elsewhere, as the high-density area becomes more desirable due to its better amenities.) And it makes it easier to provide "community services" like mass transit, that obviate increased traffic.

colordrops 7y ago

Other than environmental impact, I don't see why any of those bullet points should be protected by law.

BurningFrog 7y ago

> Decreasing the value of nearby homes (supply and demand) Or rephrased: "Making housing affordable". I mean you're right, but this is the entire point of building more housing!

everdev 7y ago
It makes housing affordable for new homeowners, but if prices drop rapidly existing homeowners can owe more than their home is worth. That's why it's not as simple as "build more affordable housing", not everyone wins if it's done too fast. While we need to provide affordable housing there are reasonable economic / environmental / community reasons why some small towns don't want it in their own backyard.
- Red_Leaves_Flyy 7y ago
  That's how cars economics work. Homes are depreciating assets. They need expensive repairs and renovations throughout their life. Modern homes are designed to last a few decades. Why are capital holders entitled to guranteed capital returns when their neighbors sleep in excrement on the streets? I see your point, so please don't accuse me of missing it. However comparing an underwater loan to living on the streets is absurd. If the house isn't worth the mortgage file bankruptcy and move on with your life. If you're living on the streets the chances of getting another chance are razor thin. We all should take a hard look at our privilege before we compare the pains of bankruptcy to the immediately life threatening hellscape that is homelessness.
  - everdev 7y ago
    Affordable housing and homeless shelters are two different things. I doubt homeless shelters produce this effect on existing home prices. And yes, telling a hard working middle class family with kids to just declare bankruptcy and move on is a big deal and worth examining the impact before you create policies that make that a real possibility.
    - Red_Leaves_Flyy 7y ago

beatgammit 7y ago

> strain on community services like schools Public schools take forever to build because they need to get a bond approved, procure land, find a builder, staff it, etc. If Washington in general and Seattle in particular were more open to charter schools, there's a better chance of schools keeping up with demand. Additionally, if Washington allowed a voucher system (it's been a while since I checked, but I'm pretty sure it's not allowed), private schools could also pick up the slack. > rapidly changing the demographic and possibly culture of the area Is that a bad thing? I'm okay with zoning laws in general, but for it to work, the city needs to be open to rapid changes in zoning.

caconym_ 7y ago

Rapidly increasing the housing supply in a way that has these knock-on effects is only possible if demand already far outstrips supply. So really the problem isn't that these things will happen—it's that laws have been protecting wealthy "communities" for so long already that the whole thing is upside-down and we risk unleashing chaos simply by satisfying the demand for housing. The solution is to get our heads around the fact that people need affordable places to live, and work toward satisfying that demand as quickly as reasonably possible without completely overloading services or putting too many homeowners on the edge upside-down on their mortgages. Unfortunately, so much damage has already been done that this will not be easy, but it will only get harder as governments continue to shelter the wealthy at the expense of everybody else and local economies in general. Oh, and hand-wringing about changing demographics and culture is not helping. Change happens. Integration is necessary.

everdev 7y ago
> Oh, and hand-wringing about changing demographics and culture is not helping. Change happens. Integration is necessary. Culture matters to a lot of people. Why do you like one town versus another? Maybe the weather, maybe the jobs, but probably also because of the people, the shops, the architecture, the parks, etc. The later are all a function of culture. Some of the most unique cities are ones with a strong identity. If you take an agricultural town with lots of great festivals, open space and farm to table restaurants and basically make it an affordable housing suburb for the nearby big cities, it's not an easy win/win. You'll need to take that open space and popup some fast food restaurants to feed the demand. Something is lost culturally in that process and it's worth examining rather than saying it's inevitable or necessary.
- caconym_ 7y ago
  Culture is made of and by people, and when those people are spending four hours in their cars every day getting to and from work or working themselves to the bone with multiple jobs just to afford a place to live, you're going to have a whole lot less of it. Fetishizing yesterday's culture is a poor substitute.

Aloha 7y ago

The people are moving there whether you like it or not. Seattle has had 20 years of almost continuous growth, with little housing expansion, and almost no affordable units (compared to growth. Yet, it has this idea, that if we ignore the problem it'll just go away. Realistically, every city needs to accept that it is not an ocean liner, and cannot pull up the gangplanks and go "oh, sorry, we're full now, maybe you should try Portland? best of luck to you!"

quotemstr 7y ago
> Seattle has had 20 years of almost continuous growth, with little housing expansion False. "Seattle not only has more cranes than any other major city in the country, it’s by a landslide—the city with the next-highest crane count is Chicago, with 40." https://seattle.curbed.com/2018/7/24/17608278/seattle-construction-crane-count-report https://seattle.curbed.com/2018/7/24/17608278/seattle-constr... > almost no affordable units Rents have actually declined over the past few years, and housing outside the urban core is affordable. Not everyone needs to live in SLU. > if we ignore the problem it'll just go away. If you just stop interfering with the market, the market will fix your problem for you.
- Aloha 7y ago
  Regionally, we've had a couple thousand high end luxury units built, but no great growth, to keep up with growth we need an order of magnitude more housing then that. There has been almost no growth of rental housing outside the downtown core. My rent more than doubled from 2012, to 2015, and then went up 10% a year thereafter - you are mostly correct, for one year in there my rent didn't go up - then the northward climb began again in earnest. I was living for most of that in what most would call affordable housing. The market probably would do its job and solve the issue, provided we didn't make it so dang hard to actually build anything in the City of Seattle.
  - quotemstr 7y ago
    > The market probably would do its job and solve the issue, provided we didn't make it so dang hard to actually build anything in the City of Seattle. With you there. But compared to the Bay Area, Seattle is practically permissive.

ryanmercer 7y ago

>Decreasing the value of nearby homes (supply and demand) So, instead of flipping your house after 2-5 years for 5x what you paid for it, you'll have to stay in it for 10-50 years and only get 2-3x what you paid for it?

tathougies 7y ago

Repeat after me: it is not the governments job to insure every persons individual investments maintain their value.