3 ms·

> 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 lo

by 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
I think we are on the same page here in many way. But the only reason that those higher end homes are still viable to build is because there aren't enough of them. Just as there aren't enough of the affordable homes. I'd be wary of lionizing home ownership as capitalism done right, as it has led to many of California's problems. For example, rental versus condos is a weird issue here. Million-dollar home owners here deride owned-condos, at half the cost of their detached homes, as "luxury condos" only for the super wealthy as they try to block them. They see themselves as working class, but because of the incredible appreciation of property values, and their regulatory capture which has prevented building any more housing, they have become the capitalists just like the multifamily rental building owners. (And in fact many are owners of both, because buying real estate in the 60s-70s in California has been the easiest form of capitalistic gains that I know of... protected tax status, regulatory driven shortages, etc...) We place all sorts of restrictions on new housing, but I think we should transfer all of those to existing housing as well. If somebody is against luxury condos in their neighborhood, then all remodels should have to go through just as rigorous a process. Perhaps income caps on those purchasing existing property, just as are demanded in newly built property. Otherwise, by restricting just new property in this way, we are systematically locking our younger people and immigrants from the system that provided so much wealth to the Boomers.
- ethbro 6y ago
  Good points. I'm curious if there's anywhere world-wide that's tried land swaps on a large scale. Maybe Japan? In the sense of "I give you my house + lot (and my neighbors do), you give me back X units in the more dense development you replace them with." I read on an article here that China does something similar, but that was more geared around transit right of ways and farmland, vs increasing density in low density urban areas. As you pointed out, California seems like it needs a carrot and a stick. A carrot, to financially incentivize existing homeowners to be part of the solution. And a stick, to discourage the worst tendencies of sit-on-it-forever.

by ethbro 6y ago

epistasis 6y ago

I think we are on the same page here in many way. But the only reason that those higher end homes are still viable to build is because there aren't enough of them. Just as there aren't enough of the affordable homes. I'd be wary of lionizing home ownership as capitalism done right, as it has led to many of California's problems. For example, rental versus condos is a weird issue here. Million-dollar home owners here deride owned-condos, at half the cost of their detached homes, as "luxury condos" only for the super wealthy as they try to block them. They see themselves as working class, but because of the incredible appreciation of property values, and their regulatory capture which has prevented building any more housing, they have become the capitalists just like the multifamily rental building owners. (And in fact many are owners of both, because buying real estate in the 60s-70s in California has been the easiest form of capitalistic gains that I know of... protected tax status, regulatory driven shortages, etc...) We place all sorts of restrictions on new housing, but I think we should transfer all of those to existing housing as well. If somebody is against luxury condos in their neighborhood, then all remodels should have to go through just as rigorous a process. Perhaps income caps on those purchasing existing property, just as are demanded in newly built property. Otherwise, by restricting just new property in this way, we are systematically locking our younger people and immigrants from the system that provided so much wealth to the Boomers.

ethbro 6y ago
Good points. I'm curious if there's anywhere world-wide that's tried land swaps on a large scale. Maybe Japan? In the sense of "I give you my house + lot (and my neighbors do), you give me back X units in the more dense development you replace them with." I read on an article here that China does something similar, but that was more geared around transit right of ways and farmland, vs increasing density in low density urban areas. As you pointed out, California seems like it needs a carrot and a stick. A carrot, to financially incentivize existing homeowners to be part of the solution. And a stick, to discourage the worst tendencies of sit-on-it-forever.