4 ms·

Ok I feel you, what if I own a sports team and promise promise promise that that stadium you are going to pay for is going to improve the community? Is that eno

Ok I feel you, what if I own a sports team and promise promise promise that that stadium you are going to pay for is going to improve the community? Is that enough proof? How about an Amazon warehouse? But yeah, to your point, building more housing in a supply constricted market requires like way more proof.

hammock 5y ago
What makes you feel that it's easier to build a stadium than subsidized housing? How many people, man-hours and money do you believe is spent on the efforts to get a ballpark or Amazon campus approved? Really believe it's less than a multifamily development?
- pas 5y ago
  adjusted for cost-benefit to taxpayers and profitability for developers the stadium suddenly doesn't look so good, or, um, looks amazing for those special interests.
  - hammock 5y ago
    Would be interested in an actual analysis of that, not just hand waving. A devil's advocate might say that a stadium comes with built-in jobs and attracts 10,000s of intercity spectators every week who have a lot of money burning a hole in their pocket, whereas subsidized housing brings a few families, most of whom have very little money or income. Of course there are other metrics to consider than economic impact.
    - pas 5y ago
      > The consensus among economists on the question of sports facility subsidies likely stems from the basic economic intuition that government subsidies ought to address some “market failure,” and economists sense that there is no compelling case to be made for sports subsidies. see also: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stadium_subsidy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stadium_subsidy
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
dylan604 5y ago
My favorite are the developers that promise a certain percentage of affordable housing in their high dollar developments, but never ever come close to that and never get penalized later.
- deepakhj 5y ago
  You can't "affordable housing" your way to cheaper housing or rent. It can help with reducing displacement, but it increases the cost of the market rate units. The overall problem is a lack of supply. Portland recently passed an IZ ordinance and it had devastating effects on new housing construction.
- pas 5y ago
  nobody even sued them or the city for damages?
  - dylan604 5y ago
    Who would do the suing? The people that can barely afford the housing? Surely it's not going to be the city, as the developer is more than likely in cahoots with the people that would be doing the investigating. Maybe I'm too cynical, but I've been in/around this world too long to see it as anything but cynical.
    - pas 5y ago
      It seems like either a typical class action suit. The city's negligence/unenforcement led to higher rents in that neighborhood. Or could be even easier to show that the lack of said units led to displacement for actual families. I'm not saying it's easy peasy but if affordable unit advocates believe they are important then logically enforcing the regulations they fought for shouldn't be just shrugged off, at least as a signal to cities and developers.
- heavyset_go 5y ago
  The municipality that I'm in lets developers ignore the state-wide law that mandates certain amounts of affordable housing to be built in new developments. The developers and real estate investors that are government officials also don't like to recuse themselves from such matters, either.
Swizec 5y ago
> But yeah, to your point, building more housing in a supply constricted market requires like way more proof. Having lived in downtown San Francisco for 7 years now, I can’t help but notice how all the new highrises and fancy apartments have pushed down the prices of the normal stuff. My current landlord tried to sell his house before we moved in and couldn’t get “enough” money for it because why pay $1,000,000 for a house from 1906 when you could pay the same for new construction across the street? Instead he had to settle for renting (to us). 3 years later and similar apartments in the area are now selling for $800,000 because there’s even more new construction around. Rents are down too. Why pay $4000/mo to live in an old house when you can pay $4200/mo to live in a luxury highrise across the street?
- bombcar 5y ago
  This is the correct answer. The problem is the landlords and owners vote, which cause the restrictive policies on new housing.
lr4444lr 5y ago
Not sure if you're either sarcastic or not. The issue is that the housing to be built is below market, and needs some special dispensation of permits, tax breaks, or direct grants. Those commercial and leisure entities you're talking about often push for these elements too, but they usually have to promise something in return, even so far as accepting clawback provisions and fines for failing to do so. Affordable Housing builders AFAIK never have these strings attached. If you'd counter to me with examples where this wasn't part of the agreement for commercial/leisure or where it was for affordable housing, I'd completely agree those are exceptions worth a closer look.

hammock 5y ago

What makes you feel that it's easier to build a stadium than subsidized housing? How many people, man-hours and money do you believe is spent on the efforts to get a ballpark or Amazon campus approved? Really believe it's less than a multifamily development?

pas 5y ago
adjusted for cost-benefit to taxpayers and profitability for developers the stadium suddenly doesn't look so good, or, um, looks amazing for those special interests.
- hammock 5y ago
  Would be interested in an actual analysis of that, not just hand waving. A devil's advocate might say that a stadium comes with built-in jobs and attracts 10,000s of intercity spectators every week who have a lot of money burning a hole in their pocket, whereas subsidized housing brings a few families, most of whom have very little money or income. Of course there are other metrics to consider than economic impact.
  - pas 5y ago
    > The consensus among economists on the question of sports facility subsidies likely stems from the basic economic intuition that government subsidies ought to address some “market failure,” and economists sense that there is no compelling case to be made for sports subsidies. see also: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stadium_subsidy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stadium_subsidy
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]

dylan604 5y ago

My favorite are the developers that promise a certain percentage of affordable housing in their high dollar developments, but never ever come close to that and never get penalized later.

deepakhj 5y ago
You can't "affordable housing" your way to cheaper housing or rent. It can help with reducing displacement, but it increases the cost of the market rate units. The overall problem is a lack of supply. Portland recently passed an IZ ordinance and it had devastating effects on new housing construction.
pas 5y ago
nobody even sued them or the city for damages?
- dylan604 5y ago
  Who would do the suing? The people that can barely afford the housing? Surely it's not going to be the city, as the developer is more than likely in cahoots with the people that would be doing the investigating. Maybe I'm too cynical, but I've been in/around this world too long to see it as anything but cynical.
  - pas 5y ago
    It seems like either a typical class action suit. The city's negligence/unenforcement led to higher rents in that neighborhood. Or could be even easier to show that the lack of said units led to displacement for actual families. I'm not saying it's easy peasy but if affordable unit advocates believe they are important then logically enforcing the regulations they fought for shouldn't be just shrugged off, at least as a signal to cities and developers.
heavyset_go 5y ago
The municipality that I'm in lets developers ignore the state-wide law that mandates certain amounts of affordable housing to be built in new developments. The developers and real estate investors that are government officials also don't like to recuse themselves from such matters, either.

Swizec 5y ago

> But yeah, to your point, building more housing in a supply constricted market requires like way more proof. Having lived in downtown San Francisco for 7 years now, I can’t help but notice how all the new highrises and fancy apartments have pushed down the prices of the normal stuff. My current landlord tried to sell his house before we moved in and couldn’t get “enough” money for it because why pay $1,000,000 for a house from 1906 when you could pay the same for new construction across the street? Instead he had to settle for renting (to us). 3 years later and similar apartments in the area are now selling for $800,000 because there’s even more new construction around. Rents are down too. Why pay $4000/mo to live in an old house when you can pay $4200/mo to live in a luxury highrise across the street?

bombcar 5y ago
This is the correct answer. The problem is the landlords and owners vote, which cause the restrictive policies on new housing.

lr4444lr 5y ago

Not sure if you're either sarcastic or not. The issue is that the housing to be built is below market, and needs some special dispensation of permits, tax breaks, or direct grants. Those commercial and leisure entities you're talking about often push for these elements too, but they usually have to promise something in return, even so far as accepting clawback provisions and fines for failing to do so. Affordable Housing builders AFAIK never have these strings attached. If you'd counter to me with examples where this wasn't part of the agreement for commercial/leisure or where it was for affordable housing, I'd completely agree those are exceptions worth a closer look.