3 ms·

I love the builders remedy. I feel like it doesn’t go far enough though. All local zoning should be removed without any “affordable housing” requirements at all

I love the builders remedy. I feel like it doesn’t go far enough though. All local zoning should be removed without any “affordable housing” requirements at all. Just build high density. That’s it.

outside1234 4y ago
Amen - the solution to affordable housing is lots and lots of housing.
eganist 4y ago
Nah the affordable housing stipulation is needed so there's not a glut of luxe homes where builders and sellers collude to prop prices. At least with that requirement, some people will get into homes sooner. And frankly it's for the best; it'll enable service staff etc. to live closer to the cities that need them.
- arcticbull 4y ago
  Developers build what the market will pay for. If they overbuild luxury houses, they'll go down in price. All new supply is good supply, period. We need everything from SROs to luxury penthouses. That's the only way we land on affordable housing in a market economy.
  - eganist 4y ago
    > Developers build what the market will pay for. Developers build for whatever profits the most, and they'll avoid taking a loss just as an entrepreneur will do what they can to avoid a down round. That's why we're short millions of housing units but no one's addressing the need; developers would rather create market at the top than address low margin markets at the bottom. > If they overbuild luxury houses, they'll go down in price. Tons of overbuilt supply isn't doing much against new build pricing (not enough to make it affordable. 10% tops when we instead need homes that are 50+% discounted relative to market). In fact, many developers are instead subsidizing points on mortgages through preferred lenders so they can justify that original pricing, and the points are often cheaper than a market adjustment on a home. > All new supply is good supply, period. That's not the case when developers would rather hold than sell at a loss. See my first point and the homes going off the market waiting for housing to pick up steam again. > We need everything from SROs to luxury penthouses. That's the only way we land on affordable housing in a market economy. Lol. That's the extent of my rebuttal. I'm not here to debate, I apologize. But I'd advise you sit down with a few local builders to understand their strategies to maximize gain in this market; quite a few are prepared to hold as long as needed rather than build cheap and sell to lower-margin markets. And that does exactly nothing to address today's housing problem; if it was a simple matter of supply and demand, it'd have already been addressed with the vast swaths of land we've got.
    - arcticbull 4y ago
      Nothing in America is overbuilt, the nation is short about 6,000,000 housing units. That’s a huge part of why house prices aren’t going down in spite of high interest rates. > Lol. That's the extent of my rebuttal. I'm not here to debate, I apologize. Very eloquent. I'm sure you're right and this is the only market on earth supply and demand just doesn't work.
  - throwaway2037 4y ago
    That's the only way we land on affordable housing in a market economy. For the record, the City of Berlin is one of the largest owners of rental property in... the City of Berlin. And, Germany is definitely a market economy. That said, in the United States, this would be probably be impossible. The economy and politics is much too classically liberal. (I'm not talking about Democrats == liberal.) Yes, I agree with your main point: "All new supply is good supply, period." Japan is very fair about this: The cities look visually sh-tty (during the daytime) -- architectural eyesore / concreted mess... but the prices are reasonable for middle class people. Noah Smith wrote about it: Japanese cities like Tokyo have managed to build enough housing to make housing costs fall Ref: https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/actually-japan-has-changed-a-lot https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/actually-japan-has-changed...
- hedora 4y ago
  It has been shown that such gluts eventually lower prices in all cheaper tiers of housing. High end owners trade up for discounted luxury creating a market surplus, then midrange owners trade to high end, and finally, the low end houses become more affordable. In other words, capitalism actually works at setting prices. Put another way, would you rather live in a new house that was meant to be sold way below market, and has all sorts of structural shortcuts, or in an older house that was mid- to high-end when it was built a few decades ago?
- throwaway2037 4y ago
  I see that your comment was downvoted, but I want to upvote this part: it'll enable service staff etc. to live closer to the cities that need them. Yes, and other professions like nurses, teachers, police, firefighters, etc.
  - FireBeyond 4y ago
    Otherwise you end up like Atherton, where schools are building on-site dorms for teachers, because no teacher can afford to live in Atherton (or really anywhere close to it). And then when someone does try to improve the situation by building medium density housing in Atherton (hah, I jest, by naively trying to suggest maybe building, I mean)... you get people like Steph Curry filing objections because he might have to increase the height of his fence for privacy.
  - eganist 4y ago
    Thanks. Yeah, HN could benefit from more empathy for non-STEM and non-entrepreneurial folks. Lots of idle discussion about "trickle-down" economics that miss the actual market drivers we've seen in the last 15 years. Unless developers and trusts etc. are overleveraged, they've got no incentive to dump luxe properties at below market when they know they can sell at a profit whenever the boom times come back — and this'll always be the case because impulsive or desperate buyers generally won't wait out a market. And a lot of them learned how to leverage safely after the great recession. So long as they're willing and able to attrit buyers, they'll win. Hence why we need affordable housing mandates for the people who need and can't wait for homes — the discounts free-market proponents are projecting simply won't show up unless there's a systemic liquidity issue. And that might not happen for another 20 years now that the CRE matter is being solved with large enterprises bringing their employees back into offices.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

outside1234 4y ago

Amen - the solution to affordable housing is lots and lots of housing.

eganist 4y ago

Nah the affordable housing stipulation is needed so there's not a glut of luxe homes where builders and sellers collude to prop prices. At least with that requirement, some people will get into homes sooner. And frankly it's for the best; it'll enable service staff etc. to live closer to the cities that need them.

arcticbull 4y ago
Developers build what the market will pay for. If they overbuild luxury houses, they'll go down in price. All new supply is good supply, period. We need everything from SROs to luxury penthouses. That's the only way we land on affordable housing in a market economy.
- eganist 4y ago
  > Developers build what the market will pay for. Developers build for whatever profits the most, and they'll avoid taking a loss just as an entrepreneur will do what they can to avoid a down round. That's why we're short millions of housing units but no one's addressing the need; developers would rather create market at the top than address low margin markets at the bottom. > If they overbuild luxury houses, they'll go down in price. Tons of overbuilt supply isn't doing much against new build pricing (not enough to make it affordable. 10% tops when we instead need homes that are 50+% discounted relative to market). In fact, many developers are instead subsidizing points on mortgages through preferred lenders so they can justify that original pricing, and the points are often cheaper than a market adjustment on a home. > All new supply is good supply, period. That's not the case when developers would rather hold than sell at a loss. See my first point and the homes going off the market waiting for housing to pick up steam again. > We need everything from SROs to luxury penthouses. That's the only way we land on affordable housing in a market economy. Lol. That's the extent of my rebuttal. I'm not here to debate, I apologize. But I'd advise you sit down with a few local builders to understand their strategies to maximize gain in this market; quite a few are prepared to hold as long as needed rather than build cheap and sell to lower-margin markets. And that does exactly nothing to address today's housing problem; if it was a simple matter of supply and demand, it'd have already been addressed with the vast swaths of land we've got.
  - arcticbull 4y ago
    Nothing in America is overbuilt, the nation is short about 6,000,000 housing units. That’s a huge part of why house prices aren’t going down in spite of high interest rates. > Lol. That's the extent of my rebuttal. I'm not here to debate, I apologize. Very eloquent. I'm sure you're right and this is the only market on earth supply and demand just doesn't work.
- throwaway2037 4y ago
  That's the only way we land on affordable housing in a market economy. For the record, the City of Berlin is one of the largest owners of rental property in... the City of Berlin. And, Germany is definitely a market economy. That said, in the United States, this would be probably be impossible. The economy and politics is much too classically liberal. (I'm not talking about Democrats == liberal.) Yes, I agree with your main point: "All new supply is good supply, period." Japan is very fair about this: The cities look visually sh-tty (during the daytime) -- architectural eyesore / concreted mess... but the prices are reasonable for middle class people. Noah Smith wrote about it: Japanese cities like Tokyo have managed to build enough housing to make housing costs fall Ref: https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/actually-japan-has-changed-a-lot https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/actually-japan-has-changed...
hedora 4y ago
It has been shown that such gluts eventually lower prices in all cheaper tiers of housing. High end owners trade up for discounted luxury creating a market surplus, then midrange owners trade to high end, and finally, the low end houses become more affordable. In other words, capitalism actually works at setting prices. Put another way, would you rather live in a new house that was meant to be sold way below market, and has all sorts of structural shortcuts, or in an older house that was mid- to high-end when it was built a few decades ago?
throwaway2037 4y ago
I see that your comment was downvoted, but I want to upvote this part: it'll enable service staff etc. to live closer to the cities that need them. Yes, and other professions like nurses, teachers, police, firefighters, etc.
- FireBeyond 4y ago
  Otherwise you end up like Atherton, where schools are building on-site dorms for teachers, because no teacher can afford to live in Atherton (or really anywhere close to it). And then when someone does try to improve the situation by building medium density housing in Atherton (hah, I jest, by naively trying to suggest maybe building, I mean)... you get people like Steph Curry filing objections because he might have to increase the height of his fence for privacy.
- eganist 4y ago
  Thanks. Yeah, HN could benefit from more empathy for non-STEM and non-entrepreneurial folks. Lots of idle discussion about "trickle-down" economics that miss the actual market drivers we've seen in the last 15 years. Unless developers and trusts etc. are overleveraged, they've got no incentive to dump luxe properties at below market when they know they can sell at a profit whenever the boom times come back — and this'll always be the case because impulsive or desperate buyers generally won't wait out a market. And a lot of them learned how to leverage safely after the great recession. So long as they're willing and able to attrit buyers, they'll win. Hence why we need affordable housing mandates for the people who need and can't wait for homes — the discounts free-market proponents are projecting simply won't show up unless there's a systemic liquidity issue. And that might not happen for another 20 years now that the CRE matter is being solved with large enterprises bringing their employees back into offices.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]