3 ms·

This seems disastrous for homeowners and landlords hoping to recreate this Silicon Valley success flywheel https://twitter.com/nextdoorsv/status/112904695440990

This seems disastrous for homeowners and landlords hoping to recreate this Silicon Valley success flywheel https://twitter.com/nextdoorsv/status/1129046954409902081 https://twitter.com/nextdoorsv/status/1129046954409902081

Splendor 6y ago
Good.
kory 6y ago
For landlords, you're correct. Rents will go down as more housing floods the market and the profiteering will cease. Look at Vancouver BC, where rents are significantly lower than land prices. But I don't entirely agree with this point. Regular folks that are getting rich off property are the single family homeowners. Density tends to increase land value. This law makes single family home land more valuable and easier to sell, since a developer can plop townhomes or a second house in the backyard and profit. So now on top of regular people, you've got builders competing for the same properties, hence prices will rise. I'd be worried if I owned a townhome or condo, since I wouldn't have any empty land to be built on and that's the kind of home that will be built on the now upzoned land. But there are no swathes of empty land in Portland to fill with more single family homes. Folks that own property the in the (now up-zoned) expensive neighborhoods are NIMBY because they want to preserve the low density neighborhood they live in that are close to everything, not because they want housing prices to soar more. Older neighborhoods like that just aren't built anymore--developers pick off the shelf of 1-5 nearly identical plans and fill a neighborhood with them. Old west coast city neighborhoods have a cool vibe that doesn't really exist in many places anymore, and can't really be replicated. With this up zone that will be going away over time. That's OK, because these neighborhoods should have been upzoned a long time ago and the land needs to be accessible to more people. But the conversation is more nuanced than "my housing price will go down!!1"
- crooked-v 6y ago
  > But there are no swathes of empty land in Portland to fill with more single family homes. This is a key thing. There is very little undeveloped land within Portland city limits, and the vast majority of it is lots under 1000 square feet. Most of what is there is in places that would be expensive, laborious, or unappealing to work with, like the sides of heavily sloped hills, lots completely surrounded by other lots without road access (have fun trying to work out right of way for a driveway), or waaay out nearly in the suburbs, at which point you may as well go five more minutes in that direction and save yourself some on the taxes.
mrfusion 6y ago
Good?
francis_t_catte 6y ago
Good. Housing should not be treated as an investment.
- bluGill 6y ago
  Housing is an investment, but it isn't a savings account. There is a difference. As an investment a house is a place including neighborhood to live for a long time. You should be friends with the neighbors. When you get old it is a cheap place to live (you have it paid for). It is a place to save your memories (little Bobby tables bit the rail there...). A place to make what fits your life. It isn't a savings account to get cash out of when you want some.
- Tiktaalik 6y ago
  This policy will make SFHs in Portland an extremely good investment in the long term as you can now substantially increase the amount of rentable units on the same amount of land. If you have the means buy a cheap SFH lot in Portland while you can. If we really actually want to make housing not an investment then we need to empower our government to fund the development of publicly owned housing for everyone.
  - triceratops 6y ago
    I've never understood the arguments in favor of publicly funded housing. Public funding is used for things that are a common good (e.g. roads, public parks, defense, food safety) or that are important but otherwise wouldn't get funded (e.g. basic research). Housing fits neither of those buckets. If you occupy a publicly funded housing unit, I can't - it's not a public good. And there are always developers and builders willing to stump up cash to build new housing.
    - therealdrag0 6y ago
      Checkout how public housing works in Singapore.
    - Tiktaalik 6y ago
Analemma_ 6y ago
Good. What's good for homeowners and landlords is not necessarily good for society. Indeed, the main reason housing is so unaffordable is that we have privileged the equity of homeowners/landlords above all other considerations. It's long past time for these two classes to have a much softer voice at the table.
egypturnash 6y ago
Good. Kids who grow up in Portland now might have a chance to keep on living there, instead of getting thrown off at high speed because they were more suited to a career other than "programmer" like all my artist friends from San Francisco were.

Splendor 6y ago

Good.

kory 6y ago

For landlords, you're correct. Rents will go down as more housing floods the market and the profiteering will cease. Look at Vancouver BC, where rents are significantly lower than land prices. But I don't entirely agree with this point. Regular folks that are getting rich off property are the single family homeowners. Density tends to increase land value. This law makes single family home land more valuable and easier to sell, since a developer can plop townhomes or a second house in the backyard and profit. So now on top of regular people, you've got builders competing for the same properties, hence prices will rise. I'd be worried if I owned a townhome or condo, since I wouldn't have any empty land to be built on and that's the kind of home that will be built on the now upzoned land. But there are no swathes of empty land in Portland to fill with more single family homes. Folks that own property the in the (now up-zoned) expensive neighborhoods are NIMBY because they want to preserve the low density neighborhood they live in that are close to everything, not because they want housing prices to soar more. Older neighborhoods like that just aren't built anymore--developers pick off the shelf of 1-5 nearly identical plans and fill a neighborhood with them. Old west coast city neighborhoods have a cool vibe that doesn't really exist in many places anymore, and can't really be replicated. With this up zone that will be going away over time. That's OK, because these neighborhoods should have been upzoned a long time ago and the land needs to be accessible to more people. But the conversation is more nuanced than "my housing price will go down!!1"

crooked-v 6y ago
> But there are no swathes of empty land in Portland to fill with more single family homes. This is a key thing. There is very little undeveloped land within Portland city limits, and the vast majority of it is lots under 1000 square feet. Most of what is there is in places that would be expensive, laborious, or unappealing to work with, like the sides of heavily sloped hills, lots completely surrounded by other lots without road access (have fun trying to work out right of way for a driveway), or waaay out nearly in the suburbs, at which point you may as well go five more minutes in that direction and save yourself some on the taxes.

mrfusion 6y ago

Good?

francis_t_catte 6y ago

Good. Housing should not be treated as an investment.

bluGill 6y ago
Housing is an investment, but it isn't a savings account. There is a difference. As an investment a house is a place including neighborhood to live for a long time. You should be friends with the neighbors. When you get old it is a cheap place to live (you have it paid for). It is a place to save your memories (little Bobby tables bit the rail there...). A place to make what fits your life. It isn't a savings account to get cash out of when you want some.
Tiktaalik 6y ago
This policy will make SFHs in Portland an extremely good investment in the long term as you can now substantially increase the amount of rentable units on the same amount of land. If you have the means buy a cheap SFH lot in Portland while you can. If we really actually want to make housing not an investment then we need to empower our government to fund the development of publicly owned housing for everyone.
- triceratops 6y ago
  I've never understood the arguments in favor of publicly funded housing. Public funding is used for things that are a common good (e.g. roads, public parks, defense, food safety) or that are important but otherwise wouldn't get funded (e.g. basic research). Housing fits neither of those buckets. If you occupy a publicly funded housing unit, I can't - it's not a public good. And there are always developers and builders willing to stump up cash to build new housing.
  - therealdrag0 6y ago
    Checkout how public housing works in Singapore.
  - Tiktaalik 6y ago

Analemma_ 6y ago

Good. What's good for homeowners and landlords is not necessarily good for society. Indeed, the main reason housing is so unaffordable is that we have privileged the equity of homeowners/landlords above all other considerations. It's long past time for these two classes to have a much softer voice at the table.

egypturnash 6y ago

Good. Kids who grow up in Portland now might have a chance to keep on living there, instead of getting thrown off at high speed because they were more suited to a career other than "programmer" like all my artist friends from San Francisco were.