3 ms·
I think it's an open question; economics papers are being written in 2021 on the subject (see https://www.dropbox.com/s/oplls6utgf7z6ih/Pennington_JMP.pdf?dl=0
by theptip 6y ago
I think it's an open question; economics papers are being written in 2021 on the subject (see https://www.dropbox.com/s/oplls6utgf7z6ih/Pennington_JMP.pdf?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/oplls6utgf7z6ih/Pennington_JMP.pdf... for example from the article).
One confounding factor here is that it's quite hard to draw anecdotal conclusions, because it is impossible to test the counterfactual; the YIMBY would make the case that rents would have gone up even more in Portland if the fishtanks were not built.
And the effect is quite hard to measure; that paper I linked says "I find that monthly rents fall by $22.77 - $43.18 relative to trend, or roughly 1.2 - 2.3%, for people living within 500m of a new project" -- this is probably not noticeable by you or me with anecdotal observations, but if the study is correct, and we committed to lots of new buildings, then it could make a noticeable difference in aggregate after lots of new projects were completed.
- newbie789 6y agoThat’s a very interesting paper about San Francisco. In my experience in Portland over a decade, I’ve not experienced this tiny nearly unnoticeable decline that the paper suggests. I’ve in reality seen a significant increase in rent year over year for myself and pretty much my entire friend group that spans from “couch surfing” to “can comfortably rent a multiple bedroom house”
- theptip 6y agoNote that the paper is just saying it fell vs trend - if the trend is +10% vs. last year, a local development could reduce that to say +8%. So both observations could be correct.