3 ms·

Increase the housing supply in certain ways. One of the things that drives me nuts about my town is (1) 90% of new, non-SFH development is rental, (2) new, non

by ethbro 6y ago

Increase the housing supply in certain ways. One of the things that drives me nuts about my town is (1) 90% of new, non-SFH development is rental, (2) new, non-SFH development is only in the upper price ranges, & (3) renovations are actively converting low range SFH stock into higher priced stock. I understand this is good for the city (tax revenue+, especially via SFH up-valuing, given that school demand will be unchanged), but it paints a pretty grim "in 10 years" picture. As a landlord myself (hobbyist), it's 100% unfair that someone is paying me wages they earn, because they don't have other good options. People should, at minimum, be able to realistically earn equity in their own homes. Full stop. Looking holistically at the entire chain: ownable, dense, affordable housing needs to be created. To do so, cities should use their leverage to reprioritize builders' incentives: decrease the permitting (and anything else) burden for such stock, and mandate ratios of own:rent and affordable:unaffordable for projects (it'd be fine to create and trade credits!).

hirundo 6y ago
> As a landlord myself (hobbyist) You're a private landlord, but not for the money? I don't think I've heard of that before. What do you get out of it instead? You actually enjoy the process? I haven't been a landlord, but I worked for one doing the things he would have had to do if he couldn't afford to pay me to do it. Repair, maintenance, sales, evictions. I can't imagine doing that stuff for pleasure, but it takes all kinds.
- ethbro 6y ago
  Let's say the amount of money I make from landlording isn't material income, partly by ethical choice. It's a hobby that interests me to learn about, but not one I'd say I currently enjoy, past the learning. I strictly rent to <= 2 degrees of separation from friends / family, which helps with evictions. And am currently renting to a newly married couple in their 20s, as it makes me happy to rent more stable housing than they could otherwise afford.
epistasis 6y ago
What you describe seems like the result of only allowing a tiny amount of new housing. If housing is highly restricted, then only the most wealthy will get served by new housing. The problem isn't the builders, it's the citizens of the city/town that are trying to keep people out, and limit supply. I'm that environment, the only builders that can exist at all are the ones trying to extract maximum dollars, and those who try to experiment with more affordable building types are locked out of the process. The process is selecting for exactly what you claim to not want.
- ethbro 6y ago
  > only builders that can exist at all are the ones trying to extract maximum dollars, and those who try to experiment with more affordable building types are locked out of the process Your market may vary, but I can say there are different tensions in mine. Understand there are very different reasons in SF, NYC, etc. We have less direct, homeowner-led, NIMBY resistance to increasing density. Affordable, small, dense housing here could be built, but if you're a builder... there are more rewarding options. I look at builders and investors as rational actors (in aggregate). They're not going to turn down an opportunity to make more money. So the onus should be on the ex-builder/investor portions of the process to realign the market so that affordable, ownable starter-home housing stock is the optimal self-interested choice for builders and investors. Simply mandating affordable housing is a joke -- it never gets built in economically impactful quantities. Get creative! Maybe just say "Any permits for properties above this price range automatically have +6 months of wait time added." And, personally, I see dense rental developments as just a more efficient way to transfer wealth from workers to capital. Say what you want about bank mortgages, but it's a competitive market, and the homeowner gets to keep equity (or, let's be honest: inflate away their debt while their home's current-money-value keeps pace). I guess the way I look at the entire system is that you'd be hard pressed to come up with a financial reason to develop high-density, affordable homeowner-owned homes, if you have the options to build higher end or rentals. And that means anyone doing the former is going to be outbid on property by anyone doing the latter.
  - epistasis 6y ago

by ethbro 6y ago

hirundo 6y ago

> As a landlord myself (hobbyist) You're a private landlord, but not for the money? I don't think I've heard of that before. What do you get out of it instead? You actually enjoy the process? I haven't been a landlord, but I worked for one doing the things he would have had to do if he couldn't afford to pay me to do it. Repair, maintenance, sales, evictions. I can't imagine doing that stuff for pleasure, but it takes all kinds.

ethbro 6y ago
Let's say the amount of money I make from landlording isn't material income, partly by ethical choice. It's a hobby that interests me to learn about, but not one I'd say I currently enjoy, past the learning. I strictly rent to <= 2 degrees of separation from friends / family, which helps with evictions. And am currently renting to a newly married couple in their 20s, as it makes me happy to rent more stable housing than they could otherwise afford.

epistasis 6y ago

What you describe seems like the result of only allowing a tiny amount of new housing. If housing is highly restricted, then only the most wealthy will get served by new housing. The problem isn't the builders, it's the citizens of the city/town that are trying to keep people out, and limit supply. I'm that environment, the only builders that can exist at all are the ones trying to extract maximum dollars, and those who try to experiment with more affordable building types are locked out of the process. The process is selecting for exactly what you claim to not want.

ethbro 6y ago
> only builders that can exist at all are the ones trying to extract maximum dollars, and those who try to experiment with more affordable building types are locked out of the process Your market may vary, but I can say there are different tensions in mine. Understand there are very different reasons in SF, NYC, etc. We have less direct, homeowner-led, NIMBY resistance to increasing density. Affordable, small, dense housing here could be built, but if you're a builder... there are more rewarding options. I look at builders and investors as rational actors (in aggregate). They're not going to turn down an opportunity to make more money. So the onus should be on the ex-builder/investor portions of the process to realign the market so that affordable, ownable starter-home housing stock is the optimal self-interested choice for builders and investors. Simply mandating affordable housing is a joke -- it never gets built in economically impactful quantities. Get creative! Maybe just say "Any permits for properties above this price range automatically have +6 months of wait time added." And, personally, I see dense rental developments as just a more efficient way to transfer wealth from workers to capital. Say what you want about bank mortgages, but it's a competitive market, and the homeowner gets to keep equity (or, let's be honest: inflate away their debt while their home's current-money-value keeps pace). I guess the way I look at the entire system is that you'd be hard pressed to come up with a financial reason to develop high-density, affordable homeowner-owned homes, if you have the options to build higher end or rentals. And that means anyone doing the former is going to be outbid on property by anyone doing the latter.
- epistasis 6y ago