4 ms·

Is it a supply or a demand problem? They do have a choice, zoning is just one tool among many.

epistasis 4y ago
What sort of demand side solution are you considering? Housing is a basic necessity of life. Perhaps by reducing demand you mean that instead of one family living in a single family home, demand for living space is reduced so that two families live in the same space?
- jjav 4y ago
  > Housing is a basic necessity of life. It certainly is and should be a fundamental human right. However, living in Vancouver specifically isn't a necessity. There are more affortable places. In my 20s my dream was to live in Manhattan, I wanted it so bad. Never made it, way too expensive. Had to give up that dream. A couple decades later I still occasionally wish it could've been, but never was. I have a nice house and built a nice life elsewhere. Not to take away from efforts to build more and affordable housing in the big cities, which is good and necessary. But want to point out that the idea that everyone can get to live in NYC/SF/Vancouver on the cheap isn't quite a realistic position to take either. Often the most pragmatic solution is to find a different city to live in.
  - epistasis 4y ago
    > But want to point out that the idea that everyone can get to live in NYC/SF/Vancouver on the cheap isn't quite a realistic position to take either. This is a common NIMBY trope: "everyone" wants to live here and that's impossible, so we shouldn't try. It's false in that not everyone wants to live in Vancouver/NYC/SF, far from it. But, it's easy to allow everyone who wants to to live in these places. In another comment you expressed the desire to keep your place in the city, without the burden of rising property taxes that go with your massive financial gains. Why should you get that, but not somebody else? On what basis do you privilege your own basic needs over others? That's no way to run a society, saying "got mine, forget all the rest of you."
    - jjav 4y ago
      > without the burden of rising property taxes that go with your massive financial gains I clearly did not say that. I said that as a homeowner, I'd prefer that the value didn't go up at all. I don't want massive paper gains. > But, it's easy to allow everyone who wants to to live in these places. History is showing us it isn't very easy, so I'm curious what is the plan to make it easy?
      - Schiendelman 4y ago
        Delete zoning code. It shouldn’t have been legal in the first place - the intent has always been keeping minorities out of neighborhoods.
rtlfe 4y ago
> zoning is just one tool among many Not really. If you don't build more homes, you have to limit how many people can live there. The latter is currently accomplished by money, but could be shifted to lotteries and waitlists if there was strict rent control or all housing was public. Both of those are significantly worse than just building more.
- epistasis 4y ago
  Worse for who, though? The traditional political power base of cities is homeowners, particularly those with enough wealth and free time to get involved with politics. By owning homes, they don't care about the iniquity caused by wait lists, lotteries, or rising prices. In fact, they benefit greatly from rising prices. And if they can keep people out, they don't have to worry about change causing any discomfort to what they currently enjoy.
  - jjav 4y ago
    > In fact, they benefit greatly from rising prices. Maybe. If they are able to sell at the peak. A house isn't a share of stock you can sell when the market is up. Typically you hold until the kids move out and you retire and then sell, so the timing is handed to you by life. If housing market is down the year you retire, bad luck. Meanwhile all those years they are living the house instead of selling, rising prices hurt the homeowner because it means taxes go up. As a homeowner I sure wish the estimated value never went up. I'd rather be paying the same taxes as when I bought it instead of a lot more.
    - epistasis 4y ago
      Compare your financial setting from massive financial gain versus not having it: you are immeasurably better off than the person that did not own a house during the same time period. You are also immensely better off than anybody who was born later and doesn't have massive family resources for the down payment. The rise in prices is the predictable (and desired) form of demand-side management thay results in market-based pricing of homes. In another comment you express the desire that people should live places other than Vancouver. That rise in prices gives you both financial power and the displacement of others that you desire. I think it's wrong.

What sort of demand side solution are you considering? Housing is a basic necessity of life. Perhaps by reducing demand you mean that instead of one family living in a single family home, demand for living space is reduced so that two families live in the same space?

jjav 4y ago
> Housing is a basic necessity of life. It certainly is and should be a fundamental human right. However, living in Vancouver specifically isn't a necessity. There are more affortable places. In my 20s my dream was to live in Manhattan, I wanted it so bad. Never made it, way too expensive. Had to give up that dream. A couple decades later I still occasionally wish it could've been, but never was. I have a nice house and built a nice life elsewhere. Not to take away from efforts to build more and affordable housing in the big cities, which is good and necessary. But want to point out that the idea that everyone can get to live in NYC/SF/Vancouver on the cheap isn't quite a realistic position to take either. Often the most pragmatic solution is to find a different city to live in.
- epistasis 4y ago
  > But want to point out that the idea that everyone can get to live in NYC/SF/Vancouver on the cheap isn't quite a realistic position to take either. This is a common NIMBY trope: "everyone" wants to live here and that's impossible, so we shouldn't try. It's false in that not everyone wants to live in Vancouver/NYC/SF, far from it. But, it's easy to allow everyone who wants to to live in these places. In another comment you expressed the desire to keep your place in the city, without the burden of rising property taxes that go with your massive financial gains. Why should you get that, but not somebody else? On what basis do you privilege your own basic needs over others? That's no way to run a society, saying "got mine, forget all the rest of you."
  - jjav 4y ago
    > without the burden of rising property taxes that go with your massive financial gains I clearly did not say that. I said that as a homeowner, I'd prefer that the value didn't go up at all. I don't want massive paper gains. > But, it's easy to allow everyone who wants to to live in these places. History is showing us it isn't very easy, so I'm curious what is the plan to make it easy?
    - Schiendelman 4y ago
      Delete zoning code. It shouldn’t have been legal in the first place - the intent has always been keeping minorities out of neighborhoods.

rtlfe 4y ago

> zoning is just one tool among many Not really. If you don't build more homes, you have to limit how many people can live there. The latter is currently accomplished by money, but could be shifted to lotteries and waitlists if there was strict rent control or all housing was public. Both of those are significantly worse than just building more.

epistasis 4y ago
Worse for who, though? The traditional political power base of cities is homeowners, particularly those with enough wealth and free time to get involved with politics. By owning homes, they don't care about the iniquity caused by wait lists, lotteries, or rising prices. In fact, they benefit greatly from rising prices. And if they can keep people out, they don't have to worry about change causing any discomfort to what they currently enjoy.
- jjav 4y ago
  > In fact, they benefit greatly from rising prices. Maybe. If they are able to sell at the peak. A house isn't a share of stock you can sell when the market is up. Typically you hold until the kids move out and you retire and then sell, so the timing is handed to you by life. If housing market is down the year you retire, bad luck. Meanwhile all those years they are living the house instead of selling, rising prices hurt the homeowner because it means taxes go up. As a homeowner I sure wish the estimated value never went up. I'd rather be paying the same taxes as when I bought it instead of a lot more.
  - epistasis 4y ago
    Compare your financial setting from massive financial gain versus not having it: you are immeasurably better off than the person that did not own a house during the same time period. You are also immensely better off than anybody who was born later and doesn't have massive family resources for the down payment. The rise in prices is the predictable (and desired) form of demand-side management thay results in market-based pricing of homes. In another comment you express the desire that people should live places other than Vancouver. That rise in prices gives you both financial power and the displacement of others that you desire. I think it's wrong.