5 ms·

Unless they expect low-income people to cause issues, why would housing price decrease? It should increase because the amount of land of normal price decreases

Unless they expect low-income people to cause issues, why would housing price decrease? It should increase because the amount of land of normal price decreases. Also, I always joke that you can help lower housing price in the area by causing non-offense nuisance. Walking shirtless and talking gibberish to yourself loudly. It will probably help a little.

seanmcdirmid 6y ago
In the USA, many areas have fixed schools you can go to. School performance is a high indicator of housing value, while lower income students generally pull that down...a lot. So you could lower housing prices a lot more effectively by convincing kids in the area to goof off more and not take school seriously.
- chii 6y ago
  > School performance is a high indicator of housing value but it's not a causal effect - or at least, it's a lot more complicated than a simple causal effect. School performance is affected by budget, which is paid via taxation, as well as resources available from the parents' contributions. Poorer neighbourhoods will obviously have parents contribute less, even if the taxation is the same (which, is highly unlikely as well). The cumulative effect is that poorer people receive a poorer education, which compounds over generations, and causing a negative feedback loop.
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    > but it's not a causal effect - or at least, it's a lot more complicated than a simple causal effect. It is a causal effect since parents with more resources (higher paying jobs, higher levels of education, more connections/resources) will be living in higher value housing.
  - burfog 6y ago
    School performance is not much affected by budget. The terrible high schools in DC have really high budgets. The problem lies elsewhere. It's really simple. Kids tend to be like their parents. Parents who raise kids well have a strong preference to be among their own kind. The parent who sits down at night to check homework is nothing like the parent who interrupts homework in favor of entertainment. The parent who enforces discipline is nothing like the parent who lets kids run in gangs. Families are in a bidding war to be with other families that prioritize education. Families without those values will bid lower, and thus be excluded.
    - Waterfall 6y ago
      They are it's just not obvious. Most of the budget never reaches the students and the teachers. I think 80% goes to administration or something usually. Very bad. Both schools may be getting the same amount of money but one will spend more on students and teachers. Some need metal detectors. One class clown or disturbance is all it needs to fuck up the whole teaching environment.
  - pkaye 6y ago
    I think in California for schools the bulk of the funding comes from the state level to even out the disparity.
  - julianapostate 6y ago
    >School performance is affected by budget, which is paid via taxation, as well as resources available from the parents' contributions. Thats probably 10% of it. The socioecomic status and drive of the parents is probably 75% of it. If you bring in low SES people / low drive people into a successful school district its common sense the school will be worse off handling their children. So as a home owner you have lost some piece (albeit potentially small) of the good school district you paid for when you bought your house, and your indirectly having them to subsidize other peoples children, but as in articles like this, misrepresenting the data and hoping that they dont realize their having the value of their assets chipped away at in the name of social welfare. >The cumulative effect is that poorer people receive a poorer education, which compounds over generations, and causing a negative feedback loop. I agree and it would actually make some sense for the well off with good school districts to carry out such programs to lift other people out of poverty. but when you see articles like this that are so thoroughly dishonest about true cost, it makes sense you would outright reject it because they aren't going to acknowledge you are even giving something up. and if thats their perspective, then they can go as far as they want with it, so your are better off not giving an inch.
    - Waterfall 6y ago
      All you need is one bad student to distract the class. That effect is not small.
      - iso1631 6y ago
        In my experience many of the bad students are the ones from wealthy backgrounds
  - tlear 6y ago
    School performance has very little to do with budget except at the very very tail of low budget(we are taking broken windows, no AC, no books etc) It has everything to do with parents. High property price is the price of admission of having your kids with other people willing and Able to pay. See charter schools as a good example. They do not select by ability and they don’t spend that much.. but you DO have to bother to show up(enter the lottery) this is too much to ask for A LOT of parent though. No amount of spending on schools will fix that.
AnthonyMouse 6y ago
> Unless they expect low-income people to cause issues, why would housing price decrease? In principle, by supply and demand. If there is more housing then people don't have to outbid each other for the existing housing and the prices decrease. Obviously this only applies if there is enough new housing to move the needle, which for housing projects like this there often isn't, but that's also the exact reason why programs like this are so ineffective. You have a city of a million households, a quarter of a million can't afford housing (or are having to scrimp in order to afford it), then you build a thousand units and imagine that will do something. What about the other 249,000? Anything actually effective at making housing more affordable would reduce housing prices, because that's literally what "more affordable" means.
- bananaface 6y ago
  I mean the bigger problem is that if amount of housing determined price, cities would be waaaaaaaaaaaaay cheaper than towns. Available housing may drive population growth, pushing up the price, since for whatever reason people like to aggregate.
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    Price is determined by supply and demand. There is more demand in cities so you need more supply to get the same price. People want to live near other people/businesses, but that's what cities are already, which is why there is already more demand there. There is a limit to the amount of housing you can add before you end up on the other side of the curve and prices start going back down again. There is also a matter of general policy. If hypothetically one city (and no others) added a lot of new housing so that the cost of housing there was lower there than in other cities then many people might move there, because they'd get to live in a city for less than it costs anywhere else, which would drive prices back up to near equilibrium. But if every city added housing then you wouldn't have that sort of migration because people could get into new housing without moving to another city, and then prices would decline everywhere.
AlexTWithBeard 6y ago
> why would housing price decrease? One possible reason is because more housing requires more infrastructure expenses. These expenses will be paid from taxes. Since you cannot tax low-income people, either current residents will see their bill going up, or the infrastructure will be now underfunded. It takes some time for the infrastructure to fall apart though, so the effect may be not immediate.

seanmcdirmid 6y ago

In the USA, many areas have fixed schools you can go to. School performance is a high indicator of housing value, while lower income students generally pull that down...a lot. So you could lower housing prices a lot more effectively by convincing kids in the area to goof off more and not take school seriously.

chii 6y ago
> School performance is a high indicator of housing value but it's not a causal effect - or at least, it's a lot more complicated than a simple causal effect. School performance is affected by budget, which is paid via taxation, as well as resources available from the parents' contributions. Poorer neighbourhoods will obviously have parents contribute less, even if the taxation is the same (which, is highly unlikely as well). The cumulative effect is that poorer people receive a poorer education, which compounds over generations, and causing a negative feedback loop.
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  > but it's not a causal effect - or at least, it's a lot more complicated than a simple causal effect. It is a causal effect since parents with more resources (higher paying jobs, higher levels of education, more connections/resources) will be living in higher value housing.
- burfog 6y ago
  School performance is not much affected by budget. The terrible high schools in DC have really high budgets. The problem lies elsewhere. It's really simple. Kids tend to be like their parents. Parents who raise kids well have a strong preference to be among their own kind. The parent who sits down at night to check homework is nothing like the parent who interrupts homework in favor of entertainment. The parent who enforces discipline is nothing like the parent who lets kids run in gangs. Families are in a bidding war to be with other families that prioritize education. Families without those values will bid lower, and thus be excluded.
  - Waterfall 6y ago
    They are it's just not obvious. Most of the budget never reaches the students and the teachers. I think 80% goes to administration or something usually. Very bad. Both schools may be getting the same amount of money but one will spend more on students and teachers. Some need metal detectors. One class clown or disturbance is all it needs to fuck up the whole teaching environment.
- pkaye 6y ago
  I think in California for schools the bulk of the funding comes from the state level to even out the disparity.
- julianapostate 6y ago
  >School performance is affected by budget, which is paid via taxation, as well as resources available from the parents' contributions. Thats probably 10% of it. The socioecomic status and drive of the parents is probably 75% of it. If you bring in low SES people / low drive people into a successful school district its common sense the school will be worse off handling their children. So as a home owner you have lost some piece (albeit potentially small) of the good school district you paid for when you bought your house, and your indirectly having them to subsidize other peoples children, but as in articles like this, misrepresenting the data and hoping that they dont realize their having the value of their assets chipped away at in the name of social welfare. >The cumulative effect is that poorer people receive a poorer education, which compounds over generations, and causing a negative feedback loop. I agree and it would actually make some sense for the well off with good school districts to carry out such programs to lift other people out of poverty. but when you see articles like this that are so thoroughly dishonest about true cost, it makes sense you would outright reject it because they aren't going to acknowledge you are even giving something up. and if thats their perspective, then they can go as far as they want with it, so your are better off not giving an inch.
  - Waterfall 6y ago
    All you need is one bad student to distract the class. That effect is not small.
    - iso1631 6y ago
      In my experience many of the bad students are the ones from wealthy backgrounds
- tlear 6y ago
  School performance has very little to do with budget except at the very very tail of low budget(we are taking broken windows, no AC, no books etc) It has everything to do with parents. High property price is the price of admission of having your kids with other people willing and Able to pay. See charter schools as a good example. They do not select by ability and they don’t spend that much.. but you DO have to bother to show up(enter the lottery) this is too much to ask for A LOT of parent though. No amount of spending on schools will fix that.

AnthonyMouse 6y ago

> Unless they expect low-income people to cause issues, why would housing price decrease? In principle, by supply and demand. If there is more housing then people don't have to outbid each other for the existing housing and the prices decrease. Obviously this only applies if there is enough new housing to move the needle, which for housing projects like this there often isn't, but that's also the exact reason why programs like this are so ineffective. You have a city of a million households, a quarter of a million can't afford housing (or are having to scrimp in order to afford it), then you build a thousand units and imagine that will do something. What about the other 249,000? Anything actually effective at making housing more affordable would reduce housing prices, because that's literally what "more affordable" means.

bananaface 6y ago
I mean the bigger problem is that if amount of housing determined price, cities would be waaaaaaaaaaaaay cheaper than towns. Available housing may drive population growth, pushing up the price, since for whatever reason people like to aggregate.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  Price is determined by supply and demand. There is more demand in cities so you need more supply to get the same price. People want to live near other people/businesses, but that's what cities are already, which is why there is already more demand there. There is a limit to the amount of housing you can add before you end up on the other side of the curve and prices start going back down again. There is also a matter of general policy. If hypothetically one city (and no others) added a lot of new housing so that the cost of housing there was lower there than in other cities then many people might move there, because they'd get to live in a city for less than it costs anywhere else, which would drive prices back up to near equilibrium. But if every city added housing then you wouldn't have that sort of migration because people could get into new housing without moving to another city, and then prices would decline everywhere.

AlexTWithBeard 6y ago

> why would housing price decrease? One possible reason is because more housing requires more infrastructure expenses. These expenses will be paid from taxes. Since you cannot tax low-income people, either current residents will see their bill going up, or the infrastructure will be now underfunded. It takes some time for the infrastructure to fall apart though, so the effect may be not immediate.