4 ms·

Sure, sometimes, yes, but like I said, the "build more and prices goes down!" is just too simple. https://shelterforce.org/2020/06/19/more-housing-could-increas

Sure, sometimes, yes, but like I said, the "build more and prices goes down!" is just too simple. https://shelterforce.org/2020/06/19/more-housing-could-increase-affordability-but-only-if-you-build-it-in-the-right-places-urban_housing/ https://shelterforce.org/2020/06/19/more-housing-could-incre... It also distracts from highly effective solutions, such as social housing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing_in_Singapore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing_in_Singapore https://www.npr.org/local/305/2020/02/25/809315455/how-european-style-public-housing-could-help-solve-the-affordability-crisis https://www.npr.org/local/305/2020/02/25/809315455/how-europ... Giving too much credence to an oversimplified "supply / demand" argument in the housing sector, which describes a human right, means that as soon as you mention socialized policies, people start complaining about "polluting" a "pure market supply / demand curve," despite the fact that supply / demand is just too simple a mechanism to describe a core human need, shelter. (It's such a core need it's literally the first thing one should seek in an lost-in-the-wilderness emergency, above food or even water). Anyway, what's it gonna be then? 100,000 new units at 3k/month? 200,000? When will the price automagically come down? And why is that better than the government simply buying out vacant units and giving them to the homeless, for starters, and then building blocks of housing at set rates?

klipt 4y ago
Look if the government offers to give me a free house I wouldn't say no, but the NIMBYs who oppose free market construction because it will cause a shadow on their zucchini garden will equally oppose government construction for the same reason.
triceratops 4y ago
I get that social housing is something you're particularly fond of. But in this case it would be enabling the bad behavior of NIMBYs. Why do you want to bail out people who are already rich with taxpayer money? Seems like the opposite of fair.
zbrozek 4y ago
Prices will come down when we build many millions of new homes. Sadly we are structurally unable to do it and unwilling to fix our regulatory environment to make it possible. Obviously that need is not uniformly distributed across the nation. California is probably around 4 million homes short all on its own.
- komali2 4y ago
  Sounds like prices would also come down if the government built or bought housing and then set the prices. Seems more certain to me than waiting for market forces to decide it's gonna be profitable to build 4,000,000 units.
  - zbrozek 4y ago
    Why pick only one? We need to reduce barriers to construction, regardless of who is pursuing it.
  - crooked-v 4y ago
    When builder's remedy rules kicked in this month for California cities that didn't meet state planning requirements, projects got filed for upwards of 10,000 housing units just in the first week alone. It would have been higher, except that some cities tried to game the process even more by foot-dragging and so there are ongoing lawsuits to declare them out of compliance. Current market forces would love to build truly astounding amounts of housing. The problem in the way is NIMBYism and shitty local zoning and permitting.
    - zbrozek 4y ago
      10k sounds high to me. I'm aware of about 400-500 submitted so far in the SFBA (of which I filed 20), and I personally know folks preparing a total of another 700 or so. Did you find a comprehensive tracker with higher numbers? There's a bunch in SoCal, but their non-compliance kicked in a little over a year ago.
      - carom 4y ago
        Santa Monica was about 5k units by itself. That is a 10% increase in the city's housing stock. There is so much pent up demand and the government and NIMBYs do everything to prevent new development. There was a four year period in Santa Monica where a grand total of 12 multi family units were permitted. [1] 1. Page 14 https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/santamonica_localprofile.pdf?1606011172 https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/santam...
mixmastamyk 4y ago
Doesn't seem like you've read the article: https://archive.ph/w29ut https://archive.ph/w29ut

klipt 4y ago

Look if the government offers to give me a free house I wouldn't say no, but the NIMBYs who oppose free market construction because it will cause a shadow on their zucchini garden will equally oppose government construction for the same reason.

triceratops 4y ago

I get that social housing is something you're particularly fond of. But in this case it would be enabling the bad behavior of NIMBYs. Why do you want to bail out people who are already rich with taxpayer money? Seems like the opposite of fair.

zbrozek 4y ago

Prices will come down when we build many millions of new homes. Sadly we are structurally unable to do it and unwilling to fix our regulatory environment to make it possible. Obviously that need is not uniformly distributed across the nation. California is probably around 4 million homes short all on its own.

komali2 4y ago
Sounds like prices would also come down if the government built or bought housing and then set the prices. Seems more certain to me than waiting for market forces to decide it's gonna be profitable to build 4,000,000 units.
- zbrozek 4y ago
  Why pick only one? We need to reduce barriers to construction, regardless of who is pursuing it.
- crooked-v 4y ago
  When builder's remedy rules kicked in this month for California cities that didn't meet state planning requirements, projects got filed for upwards of 10,000 housing units just in the first week alone. It would have been higher, except that some cities tried to game the process even more by foot-dragging and so there are ongoing lawsuits to declare them out of compliance. Current market forces would love to build truly astounding amounts of housing. The problem in the way is NIMBYism and shitty local zoning and permitting.
  - zbrozek 4y ago
    10k sounds high to me. I'm aware of about 400-500 submitted so far in the SFBA (of which I filed 20), and I personally know folks preparing a total of another 700 or so. Did you find a comprehensive tracker with higher numbers? There's a bunch in SoCal, but their non-compliance kicked in a little over a year ago.
    - carom 4y ago
      Santa Monica was about 5k units by itself. That is a 10% increase in the city's housing stock. There is so much pent up demand and the government and NIMBYs do everything to prevent new development. There was a four year period in Santa Monica where a grand total of 12 multi family units were permitted. [1] 1. Page 14 https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/santamonica_localprofile.pdf?1606011172 https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/santam...

mixmastamyk 4y ago

Doesn't seem like you've read the article: https://archive.ph/w29ut https://archive.ph/w29ut