4 ms·

I've seen this argument touted frequently in housing related threads and it always confuses me. Housing prices have soared over the majority of the developed wo

I've seen this argument touted frequently in housing related threads and it always confuses me. Housing prices have soared over the majority of the developed world - dozens of countries[1]. Is NYMBYism and prop13 driving the housing crisis in Luxembourg? Chile? Estonia? Do you think the entire world property market, taxation and legislation is structured exactly like in the California bay area? The whole "just zone more high rises" argument is so obviously reductive, I can't help but think it's pushed primarily by property developers and speculators. Housing prices continuously rising to slurp up any marginal income has been studied by economists for a couple of centuries (rent extraction), and taxation solutions such as a Land Value Tax were suggested by Adam Smith himself. https://blogs.imf.org/2021/10/18/housing-prices-continue-to-soar-in-many-countries-around-the-world/ https://blogs.imf.org/2021/10/18/housing-prices-continue-to-...

Panzer04 5y ago
What do you mean "obviously reductive"? Why wouldn't it work?
- ultraluminous 5y ago
  It's not a question of "would it work", the point is that real-estate prices are rising in dozens of countries, and thousands of cities. Zoning is a local issue. Assuming that the reason homes prices are out of control in Santiago, Chile and in Tel Aviv, Israel for the same reasons as in San Fransisco is, well, silly.
- gonehome 5y ago
  He's just wrong - in cities that have more building (Austin TX for example) the housing is more affordable. That doesn't mean 'cheap' if demand is also increasing, but it does cause prices to be lower relative to cities that restrict supply. This is just basic economics, people twist themselves in knots to come up with reasons why the obvious supply/demand is somehow not applicable in this case. If you allow building in capitalist markets then increased supply will reduces prices as demand is met.
fleddr 5y ago
I agree. Here in the Netherlands, NIMBYism isn't really a thing. If you don't own the land, you as existing resident have very little say in new developments around you, exceptions aside. Even in this situation where almost every development is approved, it doesn't lower prices at all. The reality is that when demand is continuously high, you can never keep up with supply. It just keeps coming. Which is what happened to my town. A small, quiet, rural town. That was 20 years ago. Now it's packed. Every inch used. Traffic jams just to get to the center. Agricultural and nature areas transformed into concrete. Quality of life is down whilst prices just keep rising regardless. Do these people have a right to live here? YES. Do I have a right to forever preserve my old town? NO. I'm just saying NIMBYism isn't some roadblock standing in the way of an actual solution.
- ultraluminous 5y ago
  Yup. Essentially, housing is an in-elastic demand, and livable land is a finite resource, further exacerbated by the realities of emigration. Combined with extreme wealth inequality, it brings us to this type of dystopia - https://ssir.org/articles/entry/tackling_the_housing_crisis_and_bridging_generational_divides_through_home_sharing https://ssir.org/articles/entry/tackling_the_housing_crisis_...
  - fleddr 5y ago
    I agree that livable land is finite, but far from scarce. The US has an enormous supply of livable land, it's just that everybody clusters into hot zones. It's obviously not easy to break that pattern, but I consider it the only real solution.
    - maxerickson 5y ago
      Yeah, the US is at a point where there is a lot of built environment that is underutilized because job opportunities are concentrated in other places, never mind the large amount of land that can readily be developed.

Panzer04 5y ago

What do you mean "obviously reductive"? Why wouldn't it work?

ultraluminous 5y ago
It's not a question of "would it work", the point is that real-estate prices are rising in dozens of countries, and thousands of cities. Zoning is a local issue. Assuming that the reason homes prices are out of control in Santiago, Chile and in Tel Aviv, Israel for the same reasons as in San Fransisco is, well, silly.
gonehome 5y ago
He's just wrong - in cities that have more building (Austin TX for example) the housing is more affordable. That doesn't mean 'cheap' if demand is also increasing, but it does cause prices to be lower relative to cities that restrict supply. This is just basic economics, people twist themselves in knots to come up with reasons why the obvious supply/demand is somehow not applicable in this case. If you allow building in capitalist markets then increased supply will reduces prices as demand is met.

fleddr 5y ago

I agree. Here in the Netherlands, NIMBYism isn't really a thing. If you don't own the land, you as existing resident have very little say in new developments around you, exceptions aside. Even in this situation where almost every development is approved, it doesn't lower prices at all. The reality is that when demand is continuously high, you can never keep up with supply. It just keeps coming. Which is what happened to my town. A small, quiet, rural town. That was 20 years ago. Now it's packed. Every inch used. Traffic jams just to get to the center. Agricultural and nature areas transformed into concrete. Quality of life is down whilst prices just keep rising regardless. Do these people have a right to live here? YES. Do I have a right to forever preserve my old town? NO. I'm just saying NIMBYism isn't some roadblock standing in the way of an actual solution.

ultraluminous 5y ago
Yup. Essentially, housing is an in-elastic demand, and livable land is a finite resource, further exacerbated by the realities of emigration. Combined with extreme wealth inequality, it brings us to this type of dystopia - https://ssir.org/articles/entry/tackling_the_housing_crisis_and_bridging_generational_divides_through_home_sharing https://ssir.org/articles/entry/tackling_the_housing_crisis_...
- fleddr 5y ago
  I agree that livable land is finite, but far from scarce. The US has an enormous supply of livable land, it's just that everybody clusters into hot zones. It's obviously not easy to break that pattern, but I consider it the only real solution.
  - maxerickson 5y ago
    Yeah, the US is at a point where there is a lot of built environment that is underutilized because job opportunities are concentrated in other places, never mind the large amount of land that can readily be developed.