3 ms·

>So are you proposing to build so many new apartments in SF or LA that rent drops by over 1,000 a month? That would be great and I think it would be good for t

by slg 5y ago

>So are you proposing to build so many new apartments in SF or LA that rent drops by over 1,000 a month? That would be great and I think it would be good for the cities overall, but that isn't really the problem that is causing homelessness. Housing is not a single market. People on the street generally aren't choosing between a 800 sqft 1 bedroom and a tent. However when we build housing we often focus on the top of the market with luxury condos that come with dishwashers, central air, washer/dryers, and parking spaces. Building those doesn't help homeless people. We need new construction across the entire spectrum of housing including single room occupancy that often serves as a last option before someone is forced onto the street. Living in a 100 sqft home with a communal bathroom isn't great, but it sure beats living on the street. And I comfortable knowing that increasing the supply of that SRO housing isn't going to make my rent any cheaper.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
epistasis 5y ago
The reason that we "focus" on the expensive high end housing is the same that prices are high: in scarcity, those with the most money get served first. That and new SROs have been banned; they might be profitable but they are illegal to build in most jurisdictions. My town recently made them legal again, but the anti-growth crowd has paradoxically started opposing them in full force because they are "unaffordable" despite being far more affordable than other options. Also, SRO construction could make your rent cheaper. Pressure on supply comes from both directions, and as 2-bedroom apartments that house 8 people start to have fewer people due to SROs, is helps everyone. Or due to any affordable housing, honestly. I'm of the opinion that all supply is good, from deeply subsidized deed-restricted below market rate units, to luxury that is used only as a second or third house. (Those luxury units pay big impact fees and lots of property taxes, and prevent the luxury unit tenant from taking a more affordable unit).
- slg 5y ago
  >That and new SROs have been banned; they might be profitable but they are illegal to build in most jurisdictions. I am more familiar with the LA market than SF, but they are legal in LA and a few are in the process of being built[1]. The developer for those is a non-profit though which leads back into your first point. We build at the top of the market because that is the most profitable. I believe there needs to be government incentives or regulation to spur construction across the full spectrum of housing [1] -http://www.srohousing.org/index.html http://www.srohousing.org/index.html
  - epistasis 5y ago
    Agreed that there should be changes in regulation, but most of that is allowing a lot more construction. Right now we allow neighbors, particularly wealthy and powerful neighborhoods with the most amenities and the most demand for housing, to stop new housing. This is the core problem. Housing markets have never delivered for all of society, but right now by constraining them heavily, we are in the worst possible situation. I personally support a robust system of public housing, for all income levels that uses cross subsidy to expand the public housing system and provide for all income levels. However, being more politically realistic, even allowing young professionals to pay laborers to build new housing, rather than forcing them to pay landlords and drive out lower income people, would be a big improvement over our current system. But even this small change seems politically intractable, unless we move zoning and permitting responsibility to the state level rather than city/county level. This is how Japan has made housing much more affordable, by not local power brokers and land owners act as rentiers.
imtringued 5y ago
Building luxury apartments helps because it keeps all the rich people out of the affordable apartments meant for the non rich.

by slg 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

epistasis 5y ago

The reason that we "focus" on the expensive high end housing is the same that prices are high: in scarcity, those with the most money get served first. That and new SROs have been banned; they might be profitable but they are illegal to build in most jurisdictions. My town recently made them legal again, but the anti-growth crowd has paradoxically started opposing them in full force because they are "unaffordable" despite being far more affordable than other options. Also, SRO construction could make your rent cheaper. Pressure on supply comes from both directions, and as 2-bedroom apartments that house 8 people start to have fewer people due to SROs, is helps everyone. Or due to any affordable housing, honestly. I'm of the opinion that all supply is good, from deeply subsidized deed-restricted below market rate units, to luxury that is used only as a second or third house. (Those luxury units pay big impact fees and lots of property taxes, and prevent the luxury unit tenant from taking a more affordable unit).

slg 5y ago
>That and new SROs have been banned; they might be profitable but they are illegal to build in most jurisdictions. I am more familiar with the LA market than SF, but they are legal in LA and a few are in the process of being built[1]. The developer for those is a non-profit though which leads back into your first point. We build at the top of the market because that is the most profitable. I believe there needs to be government incentives or regulation to spur construction across the full spectrum of housing [1] -http://www.srohousing.org/index.html http://www.srohousing.org/index.html
- epistasis 5y ago
  Agreed that there should be changes in regulation, but most of that is allowing a lot more construction. Right now we allow neighbors, particularly wealthy and powerful neighborhoods with the most amenities and the most demand for housing, to stop new housing. This is the core problem. Housing markets have never delivered for all of society, but right now by constraining them heavily, we are in the worst possible situation. I personally support a robust system of public housing, for all income levels that uses cross subsidy to expand the public housing system and provide for all income levels. However, being more politically realistic, even allowing young professionals to pay laborers to build new housing, rather than forcing them to pay landlords and drive out lower income people, would be a big improvement over our current system. But even this small change seems politically intractable, unless we move zoning and permitting responsibility to the state level rather than city/county level. This is how Japan has made housing much more affordable, by not local power brokers and land owners act as rentiers.

imtringued 5y ago

Building luxury apartments helps because it keeps all the rich people out of the affordable apartments meant for the non rich.