6 ms·

> Am I wrong, or would it just be better to create more housing in ways that created affordable housing (rent control, public housing, and so forth) instead of

> Am I wrong, or would it just be better to create more housing in ways that created affordable housing (rent control, public housing, and so forth) instead of trying to see if "market" forces of supply / demand fix the issue? Rent control doesn't "create" any housing. It simply puts a cap on the price of housing. I'm a part-time Real Estate investor, and I would never invest in a city that had a rental cap, since the point of investments is to make money, not start a charity. Public housing has the same problem. You end up putting a bunch of poor people in one building, who statistically end up being associated with crime and drug use. This drives down real estate values in the adjoining neighborhood and makes real-estate less attractive to investors and you wind up creating a slum. Want to promote more affordable housing? Keep the government far away. The market has its fair share of issues and inefficiencies, but it's still more efficient than affordable housing programs dreamed up by government bureaucrats.

bobthepanda 4y ago
Government housing can work, but it needs large, sustained amounts of funding, which is not really a reality with cash-strapped local and state governments and extremely low federal appetite for such a program. There isn‘t a realistic path to a solid, pro-public housing bloc of 60 senators.
ryukafalz 4y ago
> Public housing has the same problem. You end up putting a bunch of poor people in one building, who statistically end up being associated with crime and drug use. This is not necessarily the case. Social housing in Vienna has both low-income residents who are subsidized and higher-income residents who are not. We haven’t done it as well as they do historically here in the US, but we could!
uncomputation 4y ago
> I'm a part-time Real Estate investor, and I would never invest in a city that had a rental cap Good. It is real estate "investors" like you that have contributed to the Bay Area, and California in general, pricing people out and becoming a rent-only housing economy where only the rich of the rich can even dream of buying a fairly modest house. Housing should not make you investment-style returns like the stock market. You're profiting by rent-seeking, arbitrary zoning requirements, and NIMBYism driving up the price of housing constantly just so you can make a nice "investment." Housing and shelter are for people to live, not to extract money for real estate investors. > You end up putting a bunch of poor people in one building Have you considered that poor people also need a place to live and maybe that doesn't involve you leaching every percent of profit you can? > Want to promote more affordable housing? Keep the government far away Section 8 housing in LA - as house prices have surged to multi-million two-bedroom homes since COVID - can lower prices at least as low as $400/mo after the voucher. You are simply and transparently lying for your own benefit and it is shameful.
- pitaj 4y ago
  It's a lack of development of new housing for decades that caused the high prices we see in places like the Bay Area.
  - pixelatedindex 4y ago
    And the ones that do get built are promoting “luxury living” when people just want “basic living”. None of the new construction is no-frills apartments, they’re all glitz and glam with stupid high rents - 2br is about 5K in some of these places. That’s ridiculously high. There’s even an apartment complex that advertises a redwood grove in the center - that’s just extra cost that could have been saved and passed on to the renters.
    - pitaj 4y ago
      You need to fill out the highest tier, as that opens up mid-tier housing for lower paying renters. Otherwise it pushes the highest-paying renters into the mid-tier housing stock, raising the prices for all below.
      - pixelatedindex 4y ago
        I really don't understand this logic. Just income-cap the rentals, so high paying renters aren't eligible for the low-tier housing. Only filling out highest tier means that only high tier housing gets built.
        namibj 4y ago
        So if you catch a raise you are evicted?
        pixelatedindex 4y ago
        Not necessarily - maybe your rent can just go up to market rate + 10% (or some nominal fee because you’re taking up spots in the low income section). Maybe an extra clause that you have to move out within X months after going above the limit. The laws just needs to disincentivize staying there when you’re not eligible. You obey traffic laws because it’s costly to ignore them. There can also be some buffer to income so you don’t have drastic changes just because you earn an extra 5 to 10K or something per year (depending on family size).
49531 4y ago
I think this comment pretty much sums up my issue with these movements. > I'm a part-time Real Estate investor, and I would never invest in a city that had a rental cap, since the point of investments is to make money, not start a charity. This mindset is where these issues come from in the first place. Housing as become more and more an investment, and groups of people (immigrants, disabled folks, poor people) are not as good of investments, so they're avoided by private investors. At the same time, private investors and builders are pushing back on tools that make the lives of these less profitably people easier (rent control, public housing). From what you're saying, if I want to promote more affordable housing, I keep you away from it. Where's a profit in cheap housing/low rents?
- DiggyJohnson 4y ago
  If you want to promote affordable housing, you shouldn't demonize the people who are going to increase the housing supply. You'll leave behind blustering politicians, and no capital - public or private - to develop anything.
  - pixelatedindex 4y ago
    The problem is the ones wanting to increase the housing supply are for-profit investors, and affordable housing shouldn’t be about profit. That’s my takeaway of this deadlock. Perhaps the government should directly build housing, or subsidize the cost and have it be owned and operated by the city.
    - JamesBarney 4y ago
      Why do you think the government is more efficient at building housing than private companies? Every city I've seen try this ran into substantial cost over runs and ended up with 12 1 br condos to rent to poor people at the cost of 6 million dollars. Why shouldn't it be about profit, we use a profit motive for the manufacturing of everything else in our economy, why is housing the exception?
      - 4y ago

bobthepanda 4y ago

Government housing can work, but it needs large, sustained amounts of funding, which is not really a reality with cash-strapped local and state governments and extremely low federal appetite for such a program. There isn‘t a realistic path to a solid, pro-public housing bloc of 60 senators.

ryukafalz 4y ago

> Public housing has the same problem. You end up putting a bunch of poor people in one building, who statistically end up being associated with crime and drug use. This is not necessarily the case. Social housing in Vienna has both low-income residents who are subsidized and higher-income residents who are not. We haven’t done it as well as they do historically here in the US, but we could!

uncomputation 4y ago

> I'm a part-time Real Estate investor, and I would never invest in a city that had a rental cap Good. It is real estate "investors" like you that have contributed to the Bay Area, and California in general, pricing people out and becoming a rent-only housing economy where only the rich of the rich can even dream of buying a fairly modest house. Housing should not make you investment-style returns like the stock market. You're profiting by rent-seeking, arbitrary zoning requirements, and NIMBYism driving up the price of housing constantly just so you can make a nice "investment." Housing and shelter are for people to live, not to extract money for real estate investors. > You end up putting a bunch of poor people in one building Have you considered that poor people also need a place to live and maybe that doesn't involve you leaching every percent of profit you can? > Want to promote more affordable housing? Keep the government far away Section 8 housing in LA - as house prices have surged to multi-million two-bedroom homes since COVID - can lower prices at least as low as $400/mo after the voucher. You are simply and transparently lying for your own benefit and it is shameful.

pitaj 4y ago
It's a lack of development of new housing for decades that caused the high prices we see in places like the Bay Area.
- pixelatedindex 4y ago
  And the ones that do get built are promoting “luxury living” when people just want “basic living”. None of the new construction is no-frills apartments, they’re all glitz and glam with stupid high rents - 2br is about 5K in some of these places. That’s ridiculously high. There’s even an apartment complex that advertises a redwood grove in the center - that’s just extra cost that could have been saved and passed on to the renters.
  - pitaj 4y ago
    You need to fill out the highest tier, as that opens up mid-tier housing for lower paying renters. Otherwise it pushes the highest-paying renters into the mid-tier housing stock, raising the prices for all below.
    - pixelatedindex 4y ago
      I really don't understand this logic. Just income-cap the rentals, so high paying renters aren't eligible for the low-tier housing. Only filling out highest tier means that only high tier housing gets built.
      - namibj 4y ago
        So if you catch a raise you are evicted?
        pixelatedindex 4y ago
        Not necessarily - maybe your rent can just go up to market rate + 10% (or some nominal fee because you’re taking up spots in the low income section). Maybe an extra clause that you have to move out within X months after going above the limit. The laws just needs to disincentivize staying there when you’re not eligible. You obey traffic laws because it’s costly to ignore them. There can also be some buffer to income so you don’t have drastic changes just because you earn an extra 5 to 10K or something per year (depending on family size).

49531 4y ago

I think this comment pretty much sums up my issue with these movements. > I'm a part-time Real Estate investor, and I would never invest in a city that had a rental cap, since the point of investments is to make money, not start a charity. This mindset is where these issues come from in the first place. Housing as become more and more an investment, and groups of people (immigrants, disabled folks, poor people) are not as good of investments, so they're avoided by private investors. At the same time, private investors and builders are pushing back on tools that make the lives of these less profitably people easier (rent control, public housing). From what you're saying, if I want to promote more affordable housing, I keep you away from it. Where's a profit in cheap housing/low rents?

DiggyJohnson 4y ago
If you want to promote affordable housing, you shouldn't demonize the people who are going to increase the housing supply. You'll leave behind blustering politicians, and no capital - public or private - to develop anything.
- pixelatedindex 4y ago
  The problem is the ones wanting to increase the housing supply are for-profit investors, and affordable housing shouldn’t be about profit. That’s my takeaway of this deadlock. Perhaps the government should directly build housing, or subsidize the cost and have it be owned and operated by the city.
  - JamesBarney 4y ago
    Why do you think the government is more efficient at building housing than private companies? Every city I've seen try this ran into substantial cost over runs and ended up with 12 1 br condos to rent to poor people at the cost of 6 million dollars. Why shouldn't it be about profit, we use a profit motive for the manufacturing of everything else in our economy, why is housing the exception?
    - 4y ago