5 ms·

> Making it harder to evict drives up rents and worsens the housing crisis by restricting supply Restrictive zoning and bespoke, political hurdles against deve

> Making it harder to evict drives up rents and worsens the housing crisis by restricting supply Restrictive zoning and bespoke, political hurdles against development do far more to restrict supply. I'm not understanding how housing that is in use can be considered supply available for others. Say we make it easier to evict and change nothing else: one family is evicted so another can take the unit. I don't see how that improves anything if the goal is to get both families housed. All it seems to do is enable landlords to play arbitrage and charge the highest possible price.

kristjansson 5y ago
Not OP, but literally the next clause in the sentence you quoted articulates how OP thinks barriers to eviction restrict supply
filoleg 5y ago
> I'm not understanding how housing that is in use can be considered supply available for others. Well, look at what's happening in Vancouver (and a few other places, but Vancouver is just the most obvious example), and it will easily explain your confusion. When it becomes too costly and problematic to deal with renting out your property to someone else, people who bought it as an investment will just hold onto it and let it sit empty[0]. It got bad enough, Vancouver ended up introducing a vacant property tax. 0. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/number-of-empty-homes-in-vancouver-hits-record-high-1.4175999 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/number-of-em...
- omegaworks 5y ago
  >people who bought it as an investment will just hold onto it and let it sit empty Exactly. We are starting to recognize that, as a society, buying a house as an investment and letting it sit empty is anti-social, violent behavior that should be shunned, discouraged and punished to the fullest extent.
- 908B64B197 5y ago
  With out of control immigration quotas and extremely lax policies on immigration and money transfer, it's no surprise Vancouver ended up as it is. [0] Strangely enough, the locals are voting for the same parties that enabled the situation in the first place. > Vancouver ended up introducing a vacant property tax. So you end up with a "tenant" that's a family member but not living there. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_washing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_washing
analyte123 5y ago
I'm mostly thinking about construction or the introduction of vacant homes to the rental market. Maybe "new supply" makes more sense here. Obviously if you had a choice between two jurisdictions to build apartments, all other things being equal you would choose the one that will let you start eviction proceedings after six weeks of non-payment instead of six months. I agree it's not the biggest factor, but there is probably also some interaction between zoning restrictions and tenant-friendly laws: tenant-friendly laws might reduce the political power of multi-family developers by lowering their income and leaving them at the mercy of local courts, making them less able to influence zoning and development hurdles in their favor.
- lukeschlather 5y ago
  That would matter if it were possible to introduce more new homes to the market. In many if not all large American cities the government restricts new housing construction to the point that practically speaking the rental market could crash 10% and still support a doubling of the amount of new construction.
volta83 5y ago
> I'm not understanding how housing that is in use can be considered supply available for others. Have you been to the US? From the amount of homeless and people living in tents and cars, AFAICT the expectation from this society is that people that can't afford rent for whatever reason should just live on the street. The poor do not deserve a roof. --- Kind of sarcasm, but kind of true.
- omegaworks 5y ago
  >The poor do not deserve a roof. Is exactly the implication of market-based housing. I was hoping that my explanation would help to illustrate how facilitating eviction won't help with rising homelessness. How it alone can actually foster the growth of homelessness. "Supply" created by evicting tenants is only supply for the people that can afford the new price.
  - nate_meurer 5y ago
    I think it would be more accurate to say it's the implication of artificial barriers to supply, such as restrictive zoning. The government won't build you a home, at least not the kind you'd want to live in.
    - omegaworks 5y ago
      >The government won't build you a home, at least not the kind you'd want to live in. The government needs to get out of the way of people trying to build homes, and it needs to protect the people that are currently housed. Eviction enforcement is orthogonal to these concerns.
- _-david-_ 5y ago
  Many poor have the option (depending on location and availability) to live in homeless shleters. Even when given the option many choose to not live there. My understanding is the shelters often require no drugs or alchol and that is a deal breaker for some homeless people.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

kristjansson 5y ago

Not OP, but literally the next clause in the sentence you quoted articulates how OP thinks barriers to eviction restrict supply

filoleg 5y ago

> I'm not understanding how housing that is in use can be considered supply available for others. Well, look at what's happening in Vancouver (and a few other places, but Vancouver is just the most obvious example), and it will easily explain your confusion. When it becomes too costly and problematic to deal with renting out your property to someone else, people who bought it as an investment will just hold onto it and let it sit empty[0]. It got bad enough, Vancouver ended up introducing a vacant property tax. 0. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/number-of-empty-homes-in-vancouver-hits-record-high-1.4175999 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/number-of-em...

omegaworks 5y ago
>people who bought it as an investment will just hold onto it and let it sit empty Exactly. We are starting to recognize that, as a society, buying a house as an investment and letting it sit empty is anti-social, violent behavior that should be shunned, discouraged and punished to the fullest extent.
908B64B197 5y ago
With out of control immigration quotas and extremely lax policies on immigration and money transfer, it's no surprise Vancouver ended up as it is. [0] Strangely enough, the locals are voting for the same parties that enabled the situation in the first place. > Vancouver ended up introducing a vacant property tax. So you end up with a "tenant" that's a family member but not living there. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_washing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_washing

analyte123 5y ago

I'm mostly thinking about construction or the introduction of vacant homes to the rental market. Maybe "new supply" makes more sense here. Obviously if you had a choice between two jurisdictions to build apartments, all other things being equal you would choose the one that will let you start eviction proceedings after six weeks of non-payment instead of six months. I agree it's not the biggest factor, but there is probably also some interaction between zoning restrictions and tenant-friendly laws: tenant-friendly laws might reduce the political power of multi-family developers by lowering their income and leaving them at the mercy of local courts, making them less able to influence zoning and development hurdles in their favor.

lukeschlather 5y ago
That would matter if it were possible to introduce more new homes to the market. In many if not all large American cities the government restricts new housing construction to the point that practically speaking the rental market could crash 10% and still support a doubling of the amount of new construction.

volta83 5y ago

> I'm not understanding how housing that is in use can be considered supply available for others. Have you been to the US? From the amount of homeless and people living in tents and cars, AFAICT the expectation from this society is that people that can't afford rent for whatever reason should just live on the street. The poor do not deserve a roof. --- Kind of sarcasm, but kind of true.

omegaworks 5y ago
>The poor do not deserve a roof. Is exactly the implication of market-based housing. I was hoping that my explanation would help to illustrate how facilitating eviction won't help with rising homelessness. How it alone can actually foster the growth of homelessness. "Supply" created by evicting tenants is only supply for the people that can afford the new price.
- nate_meurer 5y ago
  I think it would be more accurate to say it's the implication of artificial barriers to supply, such as restrictive zoning. The government won't build you a home, at least not the kind you'd want to live in.
  - omegaworks 5y ago
    >The government won't build you a home, at least not the kind you'd want to live in. The government needs to get out of the way of people trying to build homes, and it needs to protect the people that are currently housed. Eviction enforcement is orthogonal to these concerns.
_-david-_ 5y ago
Many poor have the option (depending on location and availability) to live in homeless shleters. Even when given the option many choose to not live there. My understanding is the shelters often require no drugs or alchol and that is a deal breaker for some homeless people.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]