4 ms·

> Only 12 percent of respondents said California needs more market-rate housing, and 61 percent said the state needs more affordable housing and housing for hom

> Only 12 percent of respondents said California needs more market-rate housing, and 61 percent said the state needs more affordable housing and housing for homeless people. I don't think most people understand that if market-rate housing isn't built en masse, and there's just 'affordable housing' allowed, the result will be mostly insanely expensive housing for the vast majority and a small token effort at affordable housing. End result? Millions of people paying ~50% of their income in rent.

civilized 5y ago
I worry that they understand too well the law of supply and demand, and prefer a small amount of designated affordable housing if it lets them salve their conscience over keeping the overall supply down, so that their own home values can continue to skyrocket. But I don't know for sure. Someone should research this... but they would need to be very skeptical and probing, not just taking people's statements at face value.
- dionidium 5y ago
  There's some truth to this, but it doesn't paint the full picture. In high-demand areas it's the land that's valuable, not the structures on the land. If Palo Alto, say, were upzoned prices wouldn't fall. Developers would love to buy that land and develop it. That's not to say that literally every single neighborhood would benefit from upzoning, but the areas most in need of upzoning do have this property. Yet homeowners oppose it. This suggests that their arguments against zoning are sincere. People genuinely do not want more density in their neighborhoods. It's not entirely a cynical ploy to boost home values.
  - kiba 5y ago
    We know what the problem is. But what is the solution? I can't imagine locking in the price and paying homeowners the current value of their land.
  - mullingitover 5y ago
    > People genuinely do not want more density in their neighborhoods. I'm happy for them. That's all well and good, but when you buy a plot of land you buy that land, you don't get controlling interest in the whole neighborhood. These shenanigans are starting to get cracked down upon at the state level, because of course local fiefdoms are going to craft self-serving policies. In aggregate, however, they ultimately strangle the economic potential of the state. There's a great writeup of how the state of California is bringing discipline to the (lack of) statewide housing development here[1]. [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/LosAngeles/comments/nqpc91/lets_talk_about_how_the_state_of_california_is/ https://www.reddit.com/r/LosAngeles/comments/nqpc91/lets_tal...
    - dionidium 5y ago
      I agree entirely, as my other comments in this thread show. I just think it's useful to properly situate and understand the arguments of your opponents. There are enough liars in the world; when we can take people at their word, we should try to do that.
  - credit_guy 5y ago
    >> People genuinely do not want more density in their neighborhoods How is that not NIMBYism ?
    - dionidium 5y ago
      It is NIMBYism. I'm describing NIMBYism.
  - perl4ever 5y ago
    >In high-demand areas it's the land that's valuable, not the structures on the land There's an old saying, tax something, get less of it. Often used to support some atavistic conservative position, it nonetheless seems relevant here. 1. We want more affordable housing. 2. The cost of land is a major problem. 3. So, tax the land value mostly out of existence and don't tax the improvements at all. It may sound crazy but why not give it a go? The key idea is that land is the one thing that you don't get less of when you tax it. Nor can you get more of it by taxing it less. This is not my idea, it's based on economic ideas over a century old, although I wouldn't go so far as to say the only tax should be land value. Just maybe see if specifically real estate and its taxes could be unfucked in this way. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism This is almost too perfect: "One day in 1871 George went for a horseback ride and stopped to rest while overlooking San Francisco Bay. He later wrote of the revelation that he had: I asked a passing teamster, for want of something better to say, what land was worth there. He pointed to some cows grazing so far off that they looked like mice, and said, "I don't know exactly, but there is a man over there who will sell some land for a thousand dollars an acre." Like a flash it came over me that there was the reason of advancing poverty with advancing wealth. With the growth of population, land grows in value, and the men who work it must pay more for the privilege"
reccanti 5y ago
I think the view that we “just need more market-rate housing” is simplistic. Blindly building lots of housing doesn’t necessarily mean that people are going to move there. In Boston, for example, many of the luxury condos that have been built are being used as investment properties: https://ips-dc.org/report-towering-excess/ https://ips-dc.org/report-towering-excess/ I think the 61% of people who want affordable housing and homeless housing recognize these failures, which is why they want a more direct solution.
- jhundal 5y ago
  The data cited on the summary page of the study does not support the conclusion that those units are unoccupied, which I think is the key question here. It does say that 64% do not claim a residential exemption on property tax, but [1] indicates that could just mean those units are rented out since the exemption only applies to owner occupied properties. [1]: https://www.boston.gov/departments/assessing/filing-property-tax-exemption https://www.boston.gov/departments/assessing/filing-property...
- geofft 5y ago
  Isn't most of the housing stock that is used as an investment property occupied, i.e., being rented out? Also, the flip side of the argument is that not building lots of housing doesn't necessarily mean that people aren't going to move there. If you have a bunch of housing that is "not for existing Bostonians" as the page says, and it's getting rented/sold, one common reason is that your city is an attractive employment location for high-paying jobs (for Boston I'd guess tech and biotech) and so people are moving in. Not building new housing for those people doesn't immediately make your city unattractive; it just means that this crowd of people with high-paying jobs will take over your existing housing stock because they can outbid "existing Bostonians."
hindsightbias 5y ago
Redmond (the author) would say for YIMBYs in the SF, "market rate" is synonymous with luxury. The "free market" will maximize returns, and the guy in the tent isn't their target market. https://www.goethe.de/prj/tbp/en/bpa/exp.html https://www.goethe.de/prj/tbp/en/bpa/exp.html

civilized 5y ago

I worry that they understand too well the law of supply and demand, and prefer a small amount of designated affordable housing if it lets them salve their conscience over keeping the overall supply down, so that their own home values can continue to skyrocket. But I don't know for sure. Someone should research this... but they would need to be very skeptical and probing, not just taking people's statements at face value.

dionidium 5y ago
There's some truth to this, but it doesn't paint the full picture. In high-demand areas it's the land that's valuable, not the structures on the land. If Palo Alto, say, were upzoned prices wouldn't fall. Developers would love to buy that land and develop it. That's not to say that literally every single neighborhood would benefit from upzoning, but the areas most in need of upzoning do have this property. Yet homeowners oppose it. This suggests that their arguments against zoning are sincere. People genuinely do not want more density in their neighborhoods. It's not entirely a cynical ploy to boost home values.
- kiba 5y ago
  We know what the problem is. But what is the solution? I can't imagine locking in the price and paying homeowners the current value of their land.
- mullingitover 5y ago
  > People genuinely do not want more density in their neighborhoods. I'm happy for them. That's all well and good, but when you buy a plot of land you buy that land, you don't get controlling interest in the whole neighborhood. These shenanigans are starting to get cracked down upon at the state level, because of course local fiefdoms are going to craft self-serving policies. In aggregate, however, they ultimately strangle the economic potential of the state. There's a great writeup of how the state of California is bringing discipline to the (lack of) statewide housing development here[1]. [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/LosAngeles/comments/nqpc91/lets_talk_about_how_the_state_of_california_is/ https://www.reddit.com/r/LosAngeles/comments/nqpc91/lets_tal...
  - dionidium 5y ago
    I agree entirely, as my other comments in this thread show. I just think it's useful to properly situate and understand the arguments of your opponents. There are enough liars in the world; when we can take people at their word, we should try to do that.
- credit_guy 5y ago
  >> People genuinely do not want more density in their neighborhoods How is that not NIMBYism ?
  - dionidium 5y ago
    It is NIMBYism. I'm describing NIMBYism.
- perl4ever 5y ago
  >In high-demand areas it's the land that's valuable, not the structures on the land There's an old saying, tax something, get less of it. Often used to support some atavistic conservative position, it nonetheless seems relevant here. 1. We want more affordable housing. 2. The cost of land is a major problem. 3. So, tax the land value mostly out of existence and don't tax the improvements at all. It may sound crazy but why not give it a go? The key idea is that land is the one thing that you don't get less of when you tax it. Nor can you get more of it by taxing it less. This is not my idea, it's based on economic ideas over a century old, although I wouldn't go so far as to say the only tax should be land value. Just maybe see if specifically real estate and its taxes could be unfucked in this way. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism This is almost too perfect: "One day in 1871 George went for a horseback ride and stopped to rest while overlooking San Francisco Bay. He later wrote of the revelation that he had: I asked a passing teamster, for want of something better to say, what land was worth there. He pointed to some cows grazing so far off that they looked like mice, and said, "I don't know exactly, but there is a man over there who will sell some land for a thousand dollars an acre." Like a flash it came over me that there was the reason of advancing poverty with advancing wealth. With the growth of population, land grows in value, and the men who work it must pay more for the privilege"

reccanti 5y ago

I think the view that we “just need more market-rate housing” is simplistic. Blindly building lots of housing doesn’t necessarily mean that people are going to move there. In Boston, for example, many of the luxury condos that have been built are being used as investment properties: https://ips-dc.org/report-towering-excess/ https://ips-dc.org/report-towering-excess/ I think the 61% of people who want affordable housing and homeless housing recognize these failures, which is why they want a more direct solution.

jhundal 5y ago
The data cited on the summary page of the study does not support the conclusion that those units are unoccupied, which I think is the key question here. It does say that 64% do not claim a residential exemption on property tax, but [1] indicates that could just mean those units are rented out since the exemption only applies to owner occupied properties. [1]: https://www.boston.gov/departments/assessing/filing-property-tax-exemption https://www.boston.gov/departments/assessing/filing-property...
geofft 5y ago
Isn't most of the housing stock that is used as an investment property occupied, i.e., being rented out? Also, the flip side of the argument is that not building lots of housing doesn't necessarily mean that people aren't going to move there. If you have a bunch of housing that is "not for existing Bostonians" as the page says, and it's getting rented/sold, one common reason is that your city is an attractive employment location for high-paying jobs (for Boston I'd guess tech and biotech) and so people are moving in. Not building new housing for those people doesn't immediately make your city unattractive; it just means that this crowd of people with high-paying jobs will take over your existing housing stock because they can outbid "existing Bostonians."

hindsightbias 5y ago

Redmond (the author) would say for YIMBYs in the SF, "market rate" is synonymous with luxury. The "free market" will maximize returns, and the guy in the tent isn't their target market. https://www.goethe.de/prj/tbp/en/bpa/exp.html https://www.goethe.de/prj/tbp/en/bpa/exp.html