5 ms·

calling this "scientific denialism" seems like a huge stretch to me. It's not a science, it's housing policy.

by vitno 6y ago

koolba 6y ago
It's a policy that is intended, or at least marketed, to lower the price of housing in the interests of the general public. The science denial aspect is refusing to look at every single instance of these policies leading to negative outcomes, some sooner than others.
- heterodoxxed 6y ago
  | to lower the price of housing in the interests of the general public. Its purpose is to prevent displacement, especially of the poor and elderly for whom displacement is a major negative. For that purpose, it has done very well as a policy.
  - zamfi 6y ago
    > For that purpose, it has done very well as a policy. Well...for those who are not actually displaced, yes. But the ones that are displaced are often essentially banished by a dysfunctional housing market. Rent control is not targeted towards the poor and elderly, and there are many others who benefit in the short-term (but then, again, are unable to move because the market rate has skyrocketed, though of course not just because of rent control).
    - heterodoxxed 6y ago
      | for those who are not actually displaced, yes. Yes, exactly. | But the ones that are displaced are often essentially banished Without it they would have been displaced even earlier. Speculative bubbles exist outside of rent control, especially in the US where rent control is never all that strong or comprehensive.
      - zamfi 6y ago
        I take a very SFBA perspective here, but... > Without it they would have been displaced even earlier This is mostly hypothetical. In functioning housing markets that don't manipulate prices or limit new construction through policy, speculative bubbles make little sense -- why would housing become more expensive if it's easy to build lots of it? The argument that removing just rent control would make folks worse off -- that I'm sympathetic to, of course. Obviously you also need to build. But rent control as practiced in most of the Bay Area causes lots of grief despite only helping a relative few of the desired beneficiaries. That is, unless you define beneficiaries much more widely than you do -- to basically make it a benefit to seniority. Rent control, like Prop 13 and construction restrictions, work to allocate scarce resources based on seniority rather than wealth or ability/willingness to pay. The argument that it allocates based on need (i.e., poverty, inability to move house) is weak; that's a mild side effect, and policies that just straight up subsidize housing (i.e., vouchers, etc.) for those in need could be much better targeted, and could be funded in a way that doesn't also incentivize poor maintenance, harassment, and eviction. Is allocating based on seniority better than wealth? For current residents--at least, until they're Ellis'd--sure. For their kids, who lack seniority? Almost never. Everyone needs a place to live. Right now, more people want to live here than we're allowing to (through construction limitations). So, sure, we could argue about how to allocate -- or we could just end the damn scarcity!
        heterodoxxed 6y ago
        | I take a very SFBA perspective here I don't know how useful an SFBA perspective is, given that area is dealing with factors that very, very few other places in America are: Namely, an historic single industry boom and a lack of expansion area. The only real comparable place in America is Manhattan.
        zamfi 6y ago
        Yeah, you're right that there are a number of SFBA-specific factors that don't apply elsewhere. But people aren't really making the rent control argument about Peoria, IL. Any place that caps both rents and housing supply through policy amid increasing demand (like Berlin, the titular locale), is going to have a ton of politics around rent control, density caps, etc., because they are choosing to allocate scarce resources by policy instead of market -- and the way to affect policy is politics.
- Jochim 6y ago
  It only leads to negative outcomes if that's the only step you take though. Most societal problems need to be tackled from multiple angles to actually see any positive effect. Rent control is a good tool for keeping existing tenants in their homes. That has a lot of value in itself but it must to be coupled with the construction of good quality, affordable public housing at or below the average rent controlled property in order to maintain the desired goals of keeping rents/property prices down for new entrants and increasing mobility. The only issue with rent control is that it's applied as a band aid without also addressing the root causes.
imtringued 6y ago
I don't think this is scientific denialism since the people involved have a pretty big stake inn the policy. After all they will get to stay in the city. The problem with rent control is that it is very populist and selfish. However, I have seen some comments and articles that talk about how building more housing in the bay area will drive up demand, somehow ignoring that there is an overabundance of commercial real estate that is driving the demand in the first place. It also ignores housing pressure, namely the concept that people increasingly live with room mates or adult children keep living with their parents. These people are already in the city and are looking for an opportunity to move out. How is giving them a place to live a net loss? If anything parents might move to a smaller residence and thus free up supply for larger families that truly need a single house. I don't know why people believe that the laws of supply and demand don't apply to the housing market. Maybe they are misapplying the idea of induced demand which is really poorly named or at least the name is not directly putting the spotlight on what is actually happening. It's basically the phenomenon that as you increase roads people will switch to their preferred mode of transport even if it is grossly inefficient. Cars carry fewer people than buses or subways so it basically has a neutral impact on traffic. The problem with applying this to the housing market is that developers actually control their plot of land. A street will just let any vehicle drive on it. A developer will instead focus on building the most efficient housing possible because he wants to optimize his bottom line. So no, he wouldn't buy a plot with a house for 2 million only to rent it out, he would try to upzone the plot and build a duplex or triplex since this will result in greater profits. The street on the other hand is fully subsidized for the people driving on it, so they end up using it wastefully.
CydeWeys 6y ago
It's economics, which is sort of a science.

calling this "scientific denialism" seems like a huge stretch to me. It's not a science, it's housing policy.

by vitno 6y ago

calling this "scientific denialism" seems like a huge stretch to me. It's not a science, it's housing policy.

It's a policy that is intended, or at least marketed, to lower the price of housing in the interests of the general public. The science denial aspect is refusing to look at every single instance of these policies leading to negative outcomes, some sooner than others.

heterodoxxed 6y ago
| to lower the price of housing in the interests of the general public. Its purpose is to prevent displacement, especially of the poor and elderly for whom displacement is a major negative. For that purpose, it has done very well as a policy.
- zamfi 6y ago
  > For that purpose, it has done very well as a policy. Well...for those who are not actually displaced, yes. But the ones that are displaced are often essentially banished by a dysfunctional housing market. Rent control is not targeted towards the poor and elderly, and there are many others who benefit in the short-term (but then, again, are unable to move because the market rate has skyrocketed, though of course not just because of rent control).
  - heterodoxxed 6y ago
    | for those who are not actually displaced, yes. Yes, exactly. | But the ones that are displaced are often essentially banished Without it they would have been displaced even earlier. Speculative bubbles exist outside of rent control, especially in the US where rent control is never all that strong or comprehensive.
    - zamfi 6y ago
      I take a very SFBA perspective here, but... > Without it they would have been displaced even earlier This is mostly hypothetical. In functioning housing markets that don't manipulate prices or limit new construction through policy, speculative bubbles make little sense -- why would housing become more expensive if it's easy to build lots of it? The argument that removing just rent control would make folks worse off -- that I'm sympathetic to, of course. Obviously you also need to build. But rent control as practiced in most of the Bay Area causes lots of grief despite only helping a relative few of the desired beneficiaries. That is, unless you define beneficiaries much more widely than you do -- to basically make it a benefit to seniority. Rent control, like Prop 13 and construction restrictions, work to allocate scarce resources based on seniority rather than wealth or ability/willingness to pay. The argument that it allocates based on need (i.e., poverty, inability to move house) is weak; that's a mild side effect, and policies that just straight up subsidize housing (i.e., vouchers, etc.) for those in need could be much better targeted, and could be funded in a way that doesn't also incentivize poor maintenance, harassment, and eviction. Is allocating based on seniority better than wealth? For current residents--at least, until they're Ellis'd--sure. For their kids, who lack seniority? Almost never. Everyone needs a place to live. Right now, more people want to live here than we're allowing to (through construction limitations). So, sure, we could argue about how to allocate -- or we could just end the damn scarcity!
      - heterodoxxed 6y ago
        | I take a very SFBA perspective here I don't know how useful an SFBA perspective is, given that area is dealing with factors that very, very few other places in America are: Namely, an historic single industry boom and a lack of expansion area. The only real comparable place in America is Manhattan.
        zamfi 6y ago
        Yeah, you're right that there are a number of SFBA-specific factors that don't apply elsewhere. But people aren't really making the rent control argument about Peoria, IL. Any place that caps both rents and housing supply through policy amid increasing demand (like Berlin, the titular locale), is going to have a ton of politics around rent control, density caps, etc., because they are choosing to allocate scarce resources by policy instead of market -- and the way to affect policy is politics.
Jochim 6y ago
It only leads to negative outcomes if that's the only step you take though. Most societal problems need to be tackled from multiple angles to actually see any positive effect. Rent control is a good tool for keeping existing tenants in their homes. That has a lot of value in itself but it must to be coupled with the construction of good quality, affordable public housing at or below the average rent controlled property in order to maintain the desired goals of keeping rents/property prices down for new entrants and increasing mobility. The only issue with rent control is that it's applied as a band aid without also addressing the root causes.

imtringued 6y ago

I don't think this is scientific denialism since the people involved have a pretty big stake inn the policy. After all they will get to stay in the city. The problem with rent control is that it is very populist and selfish. However, I have seen some comments and articles that talk about how building more housing in the bay area will drive up demand, somehow ignoring that there is an overabundance of commercial real estate that is driving the demand in the first place. It also ignores housing pressure, namely the concept that people increasingly live with room mates or adult children keep living with their parents. These people are already in the city and are looking for an opportunity to move out. How is giving them a place to live a net loss? If anything parents might move to a smaller residence and thus free up supply for larger families that truly need a single house. I don't know why people believe that the laws of supply and demand don't apply to the housing market. Maybe they are misapplying the idea of induced demand which is really poorly named or at least the name is not directly putting the spotlight on what is actually happening. It's basically the phenomenon that as you increase roads people will switch to their preferred mode of transport even if it is grossly inefficient. Cars carry fewer people than buses or subways so it basically has a neutral impact on traffic. The problem with applying this to the housing market is that developers actually control their plot of land. A street will just let any vehicle drive on it. A developer will instead focus on building the most efficient housing possible because he wants to optimize his bottom line. So no, he wouldn't buy a plot with a house for 2 million only to rent it out, he would try to upzone the plot and build a duplex or triplex since this will result in greater profits. The street on the other hand is fully subsidized for the people driving on it, so they end up using it wastefully.

CydeWeys 6y ago

It's economics, which is sort of a science.