3 ms·

Except it is. I can assure you, if you build 1000 times as many houses as there are people who want to live there, housing prices there will decrease.

dorchadas 4y ago
For a lot of these places there are enough houses for the people who want to live there. Or it's a whole hell of a lot closer. The issue is there's not enough houses for the people who want to live there and all the tourists who feel entitled to be able to stay in a house on their vacation. A house that takes away from locals, and destroys any culture of the neighbourhood.
- johngladtj 4y ago
  So there aren't enough houses. Also, why do you think you should be the arbiter of what "enough" is? What right do you have over the property of others?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - dorchadas 4y ago
    > So there aren't enough houses. There are close to enough for the locals. The problem is when tourists feel entitled to houses, like I said. Stick them on the periphery, and let the locals actually live where they work. Instead, we're doing the opposite, and destroying cities and neighbourhoods and pricing out locals in the process. > What right do you have over the property of others? I suspect this is where we're going to inherently disagree. People don't own their property in a vacuum, nor do they (nor should they) have unlimited 'rights' to do what they want with it. We don't let people dump toxic waste or oil on their properties for good reasons, and I think extending this to short-term lets is perfectly sensible due to the overwhelmingly negative benefit it has on residents. Doubly so when its corporate landlords in question doing it.
piva00 4y ago
Again, it is not that simple as you can see from London's issues with drip-feeding new housing from developers. [0] [0] https://blog.shelter.org.uk/2019/08/more-planning-permissions-but-not-enough-homes/ https://blog.shelter.org.uk/2019/08/more-planning-permission...
- johngladtj 4y ago
  It really, really is that simple and anyone making the argument that it isn't either hasn't thought this through, has never actually looked at the data, or is outright maliciously lying about it. [This chart on it's own with no further context is enough to disprove any argument anyone may have that attempts to claim housing prices aren't solved by building more housing](https://twitter.com/JeremiahDJohns/status/1615352365040766976?t=mXnldHJUV1L8UL9qm1uVuA&s=19 https://twitter.com/JeremiahDJohns/status/161535236504076697...) It's really that simple.
  - piva00 4y ago
    A Twitter chart vs the arguments of people working with research in housing departments in some of the largest cities in the world. I guess I know what source I'll actually trust a bit more.
seanmcdirmid 4y ago
The cities that built 1000 times more houses are actually more expensive. Does anyone think that Manhattan-like density in San Francisco is going to lead to Houston prices?

dorchadas 4y ago

For a lot of these places there are enough houses for the people who want to live there. Or it's a whole hell of a lot closer. The issue is there's not enough houses for the people who want to live there and all the tourists who feel entitled to be able to stay in a house on their vacation. A house that takes away from locals, and destroys any culture of the neighbourhood.

johngladtj 4y ago
So there aren't enough houses. Also, why do you think you should be the arbiter of what "enough" is? What right do you have over the property of others?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- dorchadas 4y ago
  > So there aren't enough houses. There are close to enough for the locals. The problem is when tourists feel entitled to houses, like I said. Stick them on the periphery, and let the locals actually live where they work. Instead, we're doing the opposite, and destroying cities and neighbourhoods and pricing out locals in the process. > What right do you have over the property of others? I suspect this is where we're going to inherently disagree. People don't own their property in a vacuum, nor do they (nor should they) have unlimited 'rights' to do what they want with it. We don't let people dump toxic waste or oil on their properties for good reasons, and I think extending this to short-term lets is perfectly sensible due to the overwhelmingly negative benefit it has on residents. Doubly so when its corporate landlords in question doing it.

piva00 4y ago

Again, it is not that simple as you can see from London's issues with drip-feeding new housing from developers. [0] [0] https://blog.shelter.org.uk/2019/08/more-planning-permissions-but-not-enough-homes/ https://blog.shelter.org.uk/2019/08/more-planning-permission...

johngladtj 4y ago
It really, really is that simple and anyone making the argument that it isn't either hasn't thought this through, has never actually looked at the data, or is outright maliciously lying about it. [This chart on it's own with no further context is enough to disprove any argument anyone may have that attempts to claim housing prices aren't solved by building more housing](https://twitter.com/JeremiahDJohns/status/1615352365040766976?t=mXnldHJUV1L8UL9qm1uVuA&s=19 https://twitter.com/JeremiahDJohns/status/161535236504076697...) It's really that simple.
- piva00 4y ago
  A Twitter chart vs the arguments of people working with research in housing departments in some of the largest cities in the world. I guess I know what source I'll actually trust a bit more.

seanmcdirmid 4y ago

The cities that built 1000 times more houses are actually more expensive. Does anyone think that Manhattan-like density in San Francisco is going to lead to Houston prices?