4 ms·

This is really confusing for me. The author of the article seems to be making the point that affordable housing is inherently expensive and market rate is inher

This is really confusing for me. The author of the article seems to be making the point that affordable housing is inherently expensive and market rate is inherently cheaper. If I were to follow this line of reasoning, I’d find myself advocating for no affordable housing at all. But then I read about the issue actually being about housing supply. I somewhat understand that this article is framed in such a way as to seem like it’s about one individual politician, but the points made here seem to be very black and white about the very concept of affordable housing. It kind of seems that pro- and anti- affordable housing folks are accusing each other of the same thing: valuing their own property value highest. I’m but a humble country bumpkin that grew up in affordable housing and have very little expertise about “doublespeak” but generally speaking I’ve found that when somebody makes and sells something for less, that means that the price is lower (less money required = lower cost).

ProfessorLayton 5y ago
Sadly, it is intentionally confusing, hence the double-speak. The truth is that there's no such thing as conjuring up affordable housing in expensive cities at-will. Expensive housing will be built and subsidized so that it is affordable for some, but not others. - or - Expensive (market rate) housing will be built unsubsidized and it will compete with all other housing stock. If there is little competition, the price will not be affordable, because why would it without competition. Once there's enough housing supply, then new housing stock will be competing with existing housing, and put downward pressure on prices. A third element at play here is that wealthier residents are able to afford housing regardless of price, so the key question existing residents must ask is: Do you want them to compete with you on a likely rent-controlled unit, or do you want them to take a look at the fancy new apartment with all the expensive amenities, and isn't rent controlled. Remember that all housing stock was once new and more expensive before it became affordable to everyone else. This isn't a comment for or against rent control but it is a factor that must be considered. Blocking new housing unless it's "affordable" is just NIMBYism with better optics.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- newbie789 5y ago
  So they’re both NIMBYism but one is better than the other due to having poorer optics?

ProfessorLayton 5y ago

Sadly, it is intentionally confusing, hence the double-speak. The truth is that there's no such thing as conjuring up affordable housing in expensive cities at-will. Expensive housing will be built and subsidized so that it is affordable for some, but not others. - or - Expensive (market rate) housing will be built unsubsidized and it will compete with all other housing stock. If there is little competition, the price will not be affordable, because why would it without competition. Once there's enough housing supply, then new housing stock will be competing with existing housing, and put downward pressure on prices. A third element at play here is that wealthier residents are able to afford housing regardless of price, so the key question existing residents must ask is: Do you want them to compete with you on a likely rent-controlled unit, or do you want them to take a look at the fancy new apartment with all the expensive amenities, and isn't rent controlled. Remember that all housing stock was once new and more expensive before it became affordable to everyone else. This isn't a comment for or against rent control but it is a factor that must be considered. Blocking new housing unless it's "affordable" is just NIMBYism with better optics.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
newbie789 5y ago
So they’re both NIMBYism but one is better than the other due to having poorer optics?