5 ms·

What if you're someone who thinks building stack-and-pack residences is the incorrect response for an investor-manufactured housing shortage?

SavantIdiot 5y ago
Then your thoughts are incorrect. Portland, Ore. is facing a huge housing crisis because single-home zoning prevented increasing density. Without the ability to create more housing on existing land, there is a shortage. It's that simple. They recently passed a law allowing more dense developments, and that will create more supply. There are currently 10 apartment projects in flight in the city, so there is no cabal conspiring to not build housing as you suggested. Unfortunately, current homeowners love the shortage because it is increasing the value of their homes in ways we haven't seen since ... ever. Which is incredibly short-sighted because the economy will stall without housing, which will crater the boom. Moreso because if they sell, where are they going to move in the same town? They would need to sell and leave town to someplace cheaper. It is amazing to me how many people don't think one more step ahead.
- CodeWriter23 5y ago
  Yes, I’m familiar with that narrative. Perhaps it is reality in _Portland_and_handful_of_other_places. In that case, you’re actually specifying the different case of solving a real housing shortage, not a manufactured shortage. I routinely take 3-mile walks through my neighborhood in NE Los Angeles. There are at least two homes on each block that are unoccupied. The nearby stack and pack developments don’t offset the inventory sitting idle.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - SavantIdiot 5y ago
    If I understand your argument correctly, you are making an un-evidenced claim that a cabal of housing developers are conspiring creating a housing shortage despite the biggest housing boom in the US since post WW2, while also claiming single-dwelling zoning as the root cause is somehow just an anecdote?
    - throwaway2048 5y ago
      it doesn't take some kind of cabal to do the incentivized thing, plow millions/billions into properties and don't bother with the hassle of renters when the amount they increase is far more than you would have gotten from rent before you flip them.
      - epistasis 5y ago
        Vacant houses do not match the behavior of private equity investors. PE will rent out houses and viciously profit maximize at every step. Vacant homes from "investors" are almost certainly older residents that have moved, or passed away and left it to kids that haven't figured out what to do, or just owners in the area that have locked in low property taxes and don't want to bother with the hassle of renters. These are precisely the small-time landholders that benefit the most from stopping apartments from being built, because the source of their investment games is entirely from scarcity. And the cure is precisely to take away their ability to limit housing by building what you call "stack and pack."
        CodeWriter23 5y ago
        Handwave much?
        epistasis 5y ago
        I would like to engage constructively, but I'm not sure what you doubt, and you seem to be holding me to a far different standard than you hold your own comments to. Here's the behavior of PE firms when it comes to renting houses, they rent them out and charge for everything: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/04/magazine/wall-street-landlords.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/04/magazine/wall-street-land... As for the vacancy rates, how do you know the homes are vacant, and what is the proper vacancy rate? These can be looked up in from Census ACS estimates, though I hear that the Post Office sometimes has better data. I would say that a healthy vacancy rate is at least 7%, possibly higher.
- quantumwannabe 5y ago
  Portland has an Urban Growth Boundary [1] that makes it very difficult (de-facto illegal) to build new housing on undeveloped land. That is a major cause of the housing shortage, but it was passed by people like you who wanted it to artificially densify the city. Current homeowners who want to maximize their house's value would be in favor of keeping the urban growth boundary (it restricts the supply of houses) and encouraging high density projects (if apartments can be built on a lot, it makes it more valuable), which coincidentally is the status quo in Portland and other cities on the west coast. You may personally hate sprawl for various reasons, but there is a reason why the sprawling cities of the South and Midwest are cheaper than the densifying cities of the PNW, despite many of them having larger populations. Building apartments and tearing down houses lowers the price of apartments and raises the price of houses; it's simple supply and demand. Repealing both zoning regulations and the urban growth boundary would result in a free market, but don't be surprised if people make lifestyle choices you don't approve of and the suburbs sprawl outwards in such an environment. [1] https://www.oregonmetro.gov/sites/default/files/2020/02/24/UGBCurrent.pdf https://www.oregonmetro.gov/sites/default/files/2020/02/24/U... Anything outside the yellow line can't be developed without a massive legal fight.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - SavantIdiot 5y ago
    That's great. I really appreciate the growth boundary. It is one of the reasons I like Portland. That's not at all what I'm referring to. In fact, my position, is that removing the single-family zoning restriction is a good thing. That works against sprawl. > people like you I think you may have been triggered by poor reading comprehension and gone off in a fit of ignorant rage and assumed I thought sprawl was a good thing.
    - quantumwannabe 5y ago
      My reading comprehension is fine. I'm well aware you're an urbanist who hates sprawl and cars and loves density and transit. You need to work on yours, because I never said that you like sprawl (in fact, I said the exact opposite: "You may personally hate sprawl for various reasons"), only that urban growth boundaries raise the cost of housing and that "NIMBYs", if they were motivated by increasing their property values instead of concerns over the character of their neighborhoods, would support policies like urban growth boundaries and upzoning because they result in a reduction in the supply of houses and an increase in the potential land usage value. You argued that they loved a shortage of housing because it increases property values, and I pointed out that the reality is more nuanced. How are you any different that the someone who doesn't want an apartment building built because it would change the character of the neighborhood? Both of you support policies that increase the cost of housing in the hopes that everyone will live the lifestyle that each of you prefer. You prefer multi-family housing and want people to live in it, and support policies that make it expensive to live in single-family housing. The hypothetical NIMBY (who is, as mentioned previously, not someone who is purely interested in maximizing their house's value) prefers to live in single family homes and wants it to be expensive to live in multi-family housing. I'm sure you'll reply with some handwavy thing about sustainability and externalities, but the NIMBY can similarly bring up crime, noise, congestion, and other issues with dense living. There is no difference other than which housing type the two groups prefer. I would be less hostile if urbanists like yourself would just admit that they want to force everyone to live their prefered lifestyle instead of hiding behind bogus economical and questionable environmental arguments. If you truly just wanted the option to rent apartments then there would be no need for policies like urban growth boundaries. Removing both the zoning rules and the boundaries would allow for housing that people want to be developed, but what would you do if your neighbors make the "wrong" choice?
epistasis 5y ago
I think if you are using derisive terms like "stack and pack" for apartments then you are probably precisely the investor that is manufacturing the housing crisis. Apartments create greater affordability, they allow for designing cities with lower carbon impact than single-unit homes, they allow better community, more connections, cradle-to-grave living, they allow people to survive without having to get in a car to do any task during the day. They are fantastic. I would live in a "stack and pack" home in an instant if they were allowed in my community.
- NegativeLatency 5y ago
  Your points are true, and I’m in favor of building more housing, however the single family home has traditionally been a financial boon for lots of Americans, and having to pay for rent every month vs keeping some of that value in your mortgage is hard to discount. I guess I’m just saying there should be cheap smaller houses and condos in cities too, not just rental places.
  - epistasis 5y ago
    It's weird, people say the same things whether it's condos or apartments. Where I live, they will typically be derided as "luxury condos" despite being less than half the price of detached homes in the area. (One of my more heretical opinions is that homes and land shouldn't be considered investments, and should perhaps not be a method of wealth building, as it turns every person into an investor whether they want to be or not. Which fuels regular people to take control of the local political processes that block new homes with talk of "luxury condos" and "stack and pack." If we are going to do something like this I'd favor a sovereign wealth REIT that redistributes the wealth more evenly and removed the financial incentive to be anti-competitive in land use decisions. That, or tax away all profits from speculation on land gains.)
- paiute 5y ago
  try living in one. they are great maybe from age 24-29. they typically cost more than a mortgage in my area. you don't talk to people when you are that close. I find the greater the distance between neighbors the better the relationship.
bennysomething 5y ago
How can investors decrease the supply of housing?
- nimih 5y ago
  By backing policies and politicians that constrain the expansion of public and affordable private housing in the face of an increasing population. Or by purchasing homes they do not intend to use as a primary residence.
  - bennysomething 5y ago
    An investment property still has people living in it? I've never heard of investors lobbying against social housing (in the UK at least). Forcing investors and developers to provide "affordable housing" arguably makes the problem worse. I.e. it makes it harder to make a profit and therefore disincentivises building new homes.
    - nimih 5y ago
      > An investment property still has people living in it? Investment properties don't always turn into occupied rentals; sometimes they turn into vacation/secondary homes, airbnbs, &ct. They can also end up vacant if the dwelling is being used purely as an investment vehicle or if the landlord is uninterested in lowering rent in response to market forces, although it's hard (for me, a lay person who doesn't want to spend more than a couple minutes googling) to know if those are significant quantities of homes or just a rounding error. >I've never heard of investors lobbying against social housing (in the UK at least). I don't know how UK politics works, but in the US, large investment banks and lobbying groups pour huge amounts of money into our political system, and individual investors also happen to be voters. For example, the last CA ballot measure which would've improved housing justice somewhat (2020's prop 21) saw heavily-financed opposition from landlord associations. >Forcing investors and developers to provide "affordable housing" arguably makes the problem worse. I.e. it makes it harder to make a profit and therefore disincentivises building new homes. I don't really have opinions about whether you should force developers to provide affordable housing in new developments, since I think trying to wield market forces to fix social problems has a poor track record in general. If you (well, the government, civil society, whatever) want to incentivize building new affordable homes, you should just build them yourself.

SavantIdiot 5y ago

Then your thoughts are incorrect. Portland, Ore. is facing a huge housing crisis because single-home zoning prevented increasing density. Without the ability to create more housing on existing land, there is a shortage. It's that simple. They recently passed a law allowing more dense developments, and that will create more supply. There are currently 10 apartment projects in flight in the city, so there is no cabal conspiring to not build housing as you suggested. Unfortunately, current homeowners love the shortage because it is increasing the value of their homes in ways we haven't seen since ... ever. Which is incredibly short-sighted because the economy will stall without housing, which will crater the boom. Moreso because if they sell, where are they going to move in the same town? They would need to sell and leave town to someplace cheaper. It is amazing to me how many people don't think one more step ahead.

CodeWriter23 5y ago
Yes, I’m familiar with that narrative. Perhaps it is reality in _Portland_and_handful_of_other_places. In that case, you’re actually specifying the different case of solving a real housing shortage, not a manufactured shortage. I routinely take 3-mile walks through my neighborhood in NE Los Angeles. There are at least two homes on each block that are unoccupied. The nearby stack and pack developments don’t offset the inventory sitting idle.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- SavantIdiot 5y ago
  If I understand your argument correctly, you are making an un-evidenced claim that a cabal of housing developers are conspiring creating a housing shortage despite the biggest housing boom in the US since post WW2, while also claiming single-dwelling zoning as the root cause is somehow just an anecdote?
  - throwaway2048 5y ago
    it doesn't take some kind of cabal to do the incentivized thing, plow millions/billions into properties and don't bother with the hassle of renters when the amount they increase is far more than you would have gotten from rent before you flip them.
    - epistasis 5y ago
      Vacant houses do not match the behavior of private equity investors. PE will rent out houses and viciously profit maximize at every step. Vacant homes from "investors" are almost certainly older residents that have moved, or passed away and left it to kids that haven't figured out what to do, or just owners in the area that have locked in low property taxes and don't want to bother with the hassle of renters. These are precisely the small-time landholders that benefit the most from stopping apartments from being built, because the source of their investment games is entirely from scarcity. And the cure is precisely to take away their ability to limit housing by building what you call "stack and pack."
      - CodeWriter23 5y ago
        Handwave much?
        epistasis 5y ago
        I would like to engage constructively, but I'm not sure what you doubt, and you seem to be holding me to a far different standard than you hold your own comments to. Here's the behavior of PE firms when it comes to renting houses, they rent them out and charge for everything: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/04/magazine/wall-street-landlords.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/04/magazine/wall-street-land... As for the vacancy rates, how do you know the homes are vacant, and what is the proper vacancy rate? These can be looked up in from Census ACS estimates, though I hear that the Post Office sometimes has better data. I would say that a healthy vacancy rate is at least 7%, possibly higher.
quantumwannabe 5y ago
Portland has an Urban Growth Boundary [1] that makes it very difficult (de-facto illegal) to build new housing on undeveloped land. That is a major cause of the housing shortage, but it was passed by people like you who wanted it to artificially densify the city. Current homeowners who want to maximize their house's value would be in favor of keeping the urban growth boundary (it restricts the supply of houses) and encouraging high density projects (if apartments can be built on a lot, it makes it more valuable), which coincidentally is the status quo in Portland and other cities on the west coast. You may personally hate sprawl for various reasons, but there is a reason why the sprawling cities of the South and Midwest are cheaper than the densifying cities of the PNW, despite many of them having larger populations. Building apartments and tearing down houses lowers the price of apartments and raises the price of houses; it's simple supply and demand. Repealing both zoning regulations and the urban growth boundary would result in a free market, but don't be surprised if people make lifestyle choices you don't approve of and the suburbs sprawl outwards in such an environment. [1] https://www.oregonmetro.gov/sites/default/files/2020/02/24/UGBCurrent.pdf https://www.oregonmetro.gov/sites/default/files/2020/02/24/U... Anything outside the yellow line can't be developed without a massive legal fight.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- SavantIdiot 5y ago
  That's great. I really appreciate the growth boundary. It is one of the reasons I like Portland. That's not at all what I'm referring to. In fact, my position, is that removing the single-family zoning restriction is a good thing. That works against sprawl. > people like you I think you may have been triggered by poor reading comprehension and gone off in a fit of ignorant rage and assumed I thought sprawl was a good thing.
  - quantumwannabe 5y ago
    My reading comprehension is fine. I'm well aware you're an urbanist who hates sprawl and cars and loves density and transit. You need to work on yours, because I never said that you like sprawl (in fact, I said the exact opposite: "You may personally hate sprawl for various reasons"), only that urban growth boundaries raise the cost of housing and that "NIMBYs", if they were motivated by increasing their property values instead of concerns over the character of their neighborhoods, would support policies like urban growth boundaries and upzoning because they result in a reduction in the supply of houses and an increase in the potential land usage value. You argued that they loved a shortage of housing because it increases property values, and I pointed out that the reality is more nuanced. How are you any different that the someone who doesn't want an apartment building built because it would change the character of the neighborhood? Both of you support policies that increase the cost of housing in the hopes that everyone will live the lifestyle that each of you prefer. You prefer multi-family housing and want people to live in it, and support policies that make it expensive to live in single-family housing. The hypothetical NIMBY (who is, as mentioned previously, not someone who is purely interested in maximizing their house's value) prefers to live in single family homes and wants it to be expensive to live in multi-family housing. I'm sure you'll reply with some handwavy thing about sustainability and externalities, but the NIMBY can similarly bring up crime, noise, congestion, and other issues with dense living. There is no difference other than which housing type the two groups prefer. I would be less hostile if urbanists like yourself would just admit that they want to force everyone to live their prefered lifestyle instead of hiding behind bogus economical and questionable environmental arguments. If you truly just wanted the option to rent apartments then there would be no need for policies like urban growth boundaries. Removing both the zoning rules and the boundaries would allow for housing that people want to be developed, but what would you do if your neighbors make the "wrong" choice?

epistasis 5y ago

I think if you are using derisive terms like "stack and pack" for apartments then you are probably precisely the investor that is manufacturing the housing crisis. Apartments create greater affordability, they allow for designing cities with lower carbon impact than single-unit homes, they allow better community, more connections, cradle-to-grave living, they allow people to survive without having to get in a car to do any task during the day. They are fantastic. I would live in a "stack and pack" home in an instant if they were allowed in my community.

NegativeLatency 5y ago
Your points are true, and I’m in favor of building more housing, however the single family home has traditionally been a financial boon for lots of Americans, and having to pay for rent every month vs keeping some of that value in your mortgage is hard to discount. I guess I’m just saying there should be cheap smaller houses and condos in cities too, not just rental places.
- epistasis 5y ago
  It's weird, people say the same things whether it's condos or apartments. Where I live, they will typically be derided as "luxury condos" despite being less than half the price of detached homes in the area. (One of my more heretical opinions is that homes and land shouldn't be considered investments, and should perhaps not be a method of wealth building, as it turns every person into an investor whether they want to be or not. Which fuels regular people to take control of the local political processes that block new homes with talk of "luxury condos" and "stack and pack." If we are going to do something like this I'd favor a sovereign wealth REIT that redistributes the wealth more evenly and removed the financial incentive to be anti-competitive in land use decisions. That, or tax away all profits from speculation on land gains.)
paiute 5y ago
try living in one. they are great maybe from age 24-29. they typically cost more than a mortgage in my area. you don't talk to people when you are that close. I find the greater the distance between neighbors the better the relationship.

bennysomething 5y ago

How can investors decrease the supply of housing?

nimih 5y ago
By backing policies and politicians that constrain the expansion of public and affordable private housing in the face of an increasing population. Or by purchasing homes they do not intend to use as a primary residence.
- bennysomething 5y ago
  An investment property still has people living in it? I've never heard of investors lobbying against social housing (in the UK at least). Forcing investors and developers to provide "affordable housing" arguably makes the problem worse. I.e. it makes it harder to make a profit and therefore disincentivises building new homes.
  - nimih 5y ago
    > An investment property still has people living in it? Investment properties don't always turn into occupied rentals; sometimes they turn into vacation/secondary homes, airbnbs, &ct. They can also end up vacant if the dwelling is being used purely as an investment vehicle or if the landlord is uninterested in lowering rent in response to market forces, although it's hard (for me, a lay person who doesn't want to spend more than a couple minutes googling) to know if those are significant quantities of homes or just a rounding error. >I've never heard of investors lobbying against social housing (in the UK at least). I don't know how UK politics works, but in the US, large investment banks and lobbying groups pour huge amounts of money into our political system, and individual investors also happen to be voters. For example, the last CA ballot measure which would've improved housing justice somewhat (2020's prop 21) saw heavily-financed opposition from landlord associations. >Forcing investors and developers to provide "affordable housing" arguably makes the problem worse. I.e. it makes it harder to make a profit and therefore disincentivises building new homes. I don't really have opinions about whether you should force developers to provide affordable housing in new developments, since I think trying to wield market forces to fix social problems has a poor track record in general. If you (well, the government, civil society, whatever) want to incentivize building new affordable homes, you should just build them yourself.