4 ms·

It's price gouging because existing landlords and home owners can control the supply side and prevent growing competition through zoning laws that would balance

It's price gouging because existing landlords and home owners can control the supply side and prevent growing competition through zoning laws that would balance the market.

asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
I'd have more sympathy for this narrative if there were clear voting blocs in favor of building housing among renters and opposed among homeowners. For example, if there weren't so many anti-housing pro-renter public personalities. But it doesn't seem that such clear delineations actually exist. Please let me know if I'm wrong.
- 8note 5y ago
  Building houses doesn't mean that they won't all be bought up by land owners to add to their rental offerings. Generally home owners are pro regulation to avoid building larger stuff in their neighborhoods though. Zoning and Nimbyism are home owner driven.
- jeromegv 5y ago
  Every time I see a project opposed in my neighborhood or within my city, this is my the local homeowner/neighborhood association. Not by a group of renters. There's also an endless amount of public consultation for every building that needs to be built. Toronto.
  - gruez 5y ago
    On the other hand, do you really expect someone with a 1 year lease to show up for a public consultation that might only affect things a few years down the road? There might even be a bias in the sense that anyone who bothers going to those meetings are boomers[1] who are retired and have nothing to do. [1] only half serious
- nautilius 5y ago
  I am not sure I follow: there are many anti-housing, and pro-rent public personalities (I did not know "pro-rent public personalities" is even thing) who oppose more supply side competition that would lead to lower prices, but somehow also support renters? Frankly, someone who is "anti-housing but pro-renter" sounds simply like a landlord? PS: I am sure that's not what you intended, but I'd appreciate it if you avoided that condescending tone. My argument doesn't rely on your sympathy, and reframing an argument as narrative doesn't help either. It puts into doubt all good faith you may have in a discussion.
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
    I'm thinking of the many voices on the left who oppose building more housing because it might change neighborhood character. I don't know what neck of the woods you live in but this group is quite vocal here in NYC. Sorry for the lack of clarity on my part. Also, my tone was not intended to be condescending. I wanted to be let know if I was wrong, genuinely. I am eager to update if there are other places where the renters are identifiably and largely YIMBY, because that would break some of my personal beliefs about the housing market. Any my lack of sympathy is for the narrative -- which I've heard many times before -- not you personally. I'm positive that you are great.
- malka 5y ago
  Landlord being financially stable have more time to organize as a group to do lobbying. And that's not even going into institutional landlords.
- EdwardDiego 5y ago
  In my country, increased housing density, or new social housing builds, are routinely opposed by existing land/home owners in the area. Whether it's because increased density would spoil their views, or make parking harder to find, or the social housing would bring in "undesirable elements" or lower their property value, the incumbents have a lot of reasons to oppose housing changes that would benefit society as a whole. Allow me to introduce you to the acronym NIMBY[0]. Often found in newspapers with their arms crossed looking stern in front of a building site. And you'd be amazed at what they can oppose - kindergartens, schools, even playgrounds (as they increase noise, and there's a risk of balls coming over the fence!) And planning laws that require authorities to consider submissions from residents are one of their best weapons - after all, it's typically the wealthier who can afford to own property, and so it's often the wealthier who can form groups that hire top tier lawyers to fight developments they're opposed to. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIMBY https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIMBY
oh_sigh 5y ago
Renters are allowed to vote too. Wouldn't that kind of control only be possible if the number of homeowners and landlords outnumbered the number of renters in a location? In which case it is just majority rule, which doesn't sound so conspiratorial.
- nautilius 5y ago
  'Majority rule' doesn't imply fair or good. Would you find it a cause worthy of your support to repeal men's voting rights if the 50.7% of the population in the U.S. who are women are for it? Much more extreme examples come to mind, but you get my point. There's even a snappy quote: "Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner." James Bovard
  - oh_sigh 5y ago
    Sure - the suffix to "majority rule" is commonly "and minority rights". But my point wasn't even that majority rule is ideal, but simply that it is an accepted system in our society for resolving disparate viewpoints on governance. The important point I was trying to make is that there isn't some shadowy system for how landlords can control zoning - it is merely that they exercise their right to vote their conscience.
    - nautilius 5y ago
      > but simply that it is an accepted system in our society for resolving disparate viewpoints on governance. But it is not, as my example shows. There's a lot more to it. That's the entire point. > that there isn't some shadowy system for how landlords can control zoning I don't think anyone is arguing it is in any way shadowy, it's done very openly. There is sufficient discussion in the media about the practice of voting in the US, so I will not repeat that. Also, take the Bay Area as an example - how large would you guess is the fraction of immigrants working in Tech? And mind you, even a green card does not allow you to vote. All of these people are excluded from the process. Ironic, if you think about how this whole country started on 'no taxation without representation'.
- 5y ago

It's price gouging because existing landlords and home owners can control the supply side and prevent growing competition through zoning laws that would balance the market.

asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago

I'd have more sympathy for this narrative if there were clear voting blocs in favor of building housing among renters and opposed among homeowners. For example, if there weren't so many anti-housing pro-renter public personalities. But it doesn't seem that such clear delineations actually exist. Please let me know if I'm wrong.

8note 5y ago
Building houses doesn't mean that they won't all be bought up by land owners to add to their rental offerings. Generally home owners are pro regulation to avoid building larger stuff in their neighborhoods though. Zoning and Nimbyism are home owner driven.
jeromegv 5y ago
Every time I see a project opposed in my neighborhood or within my city, this is my the local homeowner/neighborhood association. Not by a group of renters. There's also an endless amount of public consultation for every building that needs to be built. Toronto.
- gruez 5y ago
  On the other hand, do you really expect someone with a 1 year lease to show up for a public consultation that might only affect things a few years down the road? There might even be a bias in the sense that anyone who bothers going to those meetings are boomers[1] who are retired and have nothing to do. [1] only half serious
nautilius 5y ago
I am not sure I follow: there are many anti-housing, and pro-rent public personalities (I did not know "pro-rent public personalities" is even thing) who oppose more supply side competition that would lead to lower prices, but somehow also support renters? Frankly, someone who is "anti-housing but pro-renter" sounds simply like a landlord? PS: I am sure that's not what you intended, but I'd appreciate it if you avoided that condescending tone. My argument doesn't rely on your sympathy, and reframing an argument as narrative doesn't help either. It puts into doubt all good faith you may have in a discussion.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
  I'm thinking of the many voices on the left who oppose building more housing because it might change neighborhood character. I don't know what neck of the woods you live in but this group is quite vocal here in NYC. Sorry for the lack of clarity on my part. Also, my tone was not intended to be condescending. I wanted to be let know if I was wrong, genuinely. I am eager to update if there are other places where the renters are identifiably and largely YIMBY, because that would break some of my personal beliefs about the housing market. Any my lack of sympathy is for the narrative -- which I've heard many times before -- not you personally. I'm positive that you are great.
malka 5y ago
Landlord being financially stable have more time to organize as a group to do lobbying. And that's not even going into institutional landlords.
EdwardDiego 5y ago
In my country, increased housing density, or new social housing builds, are routinely opposed by existing land/home owners in the area. Whether it's because increased density would spoil their views, or make parking harder to find, or the social housing would bring in "undesirable elements" or lower their property value, the incumbents have a lot of reasons to oppose housing changes that would benefit society as a whole. Allow me to introduce you to the acronym NIMBY[0]. Often found in newspapers with their arms crossed looking stern in front of a building site. And you'd be amazed at what they can oppose - kindergartens, schools, even playgrounds (as they increase noise, and there's a risk of balls coming over the fence!) And planning laws that require authorities to consider submissions from residents are one of their best weapons - after all, it's typically the wealthier who can afford to own property, and so it's often the wealthier who can form groups that hire top tier lawyers to fight developments they're opposed to. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIMBY https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIMBY

oh_sigh 5y ago

Renters are allowed to vote too. Wouldn't that kind of control only be possible if the number of homeowners and landlords outnumbered the number of renters in a location? In which case it is just majority rule, which doesn't sound so conspiratorial.

nautilius 5y ago
'Majority rule' doesn't imply fair or good. Would you find it a cause worthy of your support to repeal men's voting rights if the 50.7% of the population in the U.S. who are women are for it? Much more extreme examples come to mind, but you get my point. There's even a snappy quote: "Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner." James Bovard
- oh_sigh 5y ago
  Sure - the suffix to "majority rule" is commonly "and minority rights". But my point wasn't even that majority rule is ideal, but simply that it is an accepted system in our society for resolving disparate viewpoints on governance. The important point I was trying to make is that there isn't some shadowy system for how landlords can control zoning - it is merely that they exercise their right to vote their conscience.
  - nautilius 5y ago
    > but simply that it is an accepted system in our society for resolving disparate viewpoints on governance. But it is not, as my example shows. There's a lot more to it. That's the entire point. > that there isn't some shadowy system for how landlords can control zoning I don't think anyone is arguing it is in any way shadowy, it's done very openly. There is sufficient discussion in the media about the practice of voting in the US, so I will not repeat that. Also, take the Bay Area as an example - how large would you guess is the fraction of immigrants working in Tech? And mind you, even a green card does not allow you to vote. All of these people are excluded from the process. Ironic, if you think about how this whole country started on 'no taxation without representation'.
5y ago