4 ms·

Politician: "I'd do anything for lower housing prices!" Build more housing. Politician: "...but I won't do that."

xnx 3y ago
s/politician/current homeowner/
Justsignedup 3y ago
That's part of the problem. The other part is that common buyers are competing with investor funds + international investors who can pay over asking price and still make a major profit. Worse is how in New York a ton of stores are left empty to lower the tax burden on the owner of the building, or to drive up prices more. All that combined with automated landlord pricing tools that effectively make a nationwide collaboration between landlords who'd previously never talk to eachother.
- TulliusCicero 3y ago
  Investing in real estate this way only makes sense when supply is sufficiently constrained. An explosion of housing makes it a bad investment. But we've made it incredibly difficult in many, perhaps most areas to build substantial new housing, so we don't get housing explosions even in areas with incredible demand. You end up with just a trickle.
- whimsicalism 3y ago
  You are diagnosing a symptom as the cause.
em500 3y ago
Politician just respond to their constituents wishes. "We should build more houses" Proposals for for new development. "... not here."
- TulliusCicero 3y ago
  I don't deny it. People want more housing, just not right next to them. Move the decisionmaking authority for zoning to the metro or state level where this sort of local regulatory capture is harder. Get more new housing spread everywhere, rather than concentrated in the few spots that are okay with it (or are too politically weak to stop it). The current setup is kind of a prisoner's dilemma. Ideally everyone would approve housing next to them and that would be the impact almost everywhere would be small, since new construction would be spread out, and housing prices would go down a lot. But if you choose to opt out of new housing, well, then you get to deal with zero new construction, which for many people is an improvement. But then if everyone does that, hardly any new housing.

xnx 3y ago

s/politician/current homeowner/

That's part of the problem. The other part is that common buyers are competing with investor funds + international investors who can pay over asking price and still make a major profit. Worse is how in New York a ton of stores are left empty to lower the tax burden on the owner of the building, or to drive up prices more. All that combined with automated landlord pricing tools that effectively make a nationwide collaboration between landlords who'd previously never talk to eachother.

TulliusCicero 3y ago
Investing in real estate this way only makes sense when supply is sufficiently constrained. An explosion of housing makes it a bad investment. But we've made it incredibly difficult in many, perhaps most areas to build substantial new housing, so we don't get housing explosions even in areas with incredible demand. You end up with just a trickle.
whimsicalism 3y ago
You are diagnosing a symptom as the cause.

em500 3y ago

Politician just respond to their constituents wishes. "We should build more houses" Proposals for for new development. "... not here."

TulliusCicero 3y ago
I don't deny it. People want more housing, just not right next to them. Move the decisionmaking authority for zoning to the metro or state level where this sort of local regulatory capture is harder. Get more new housing spread everywhere, rather than concentrated in the few spots that are okay with it (or are too politically weak to stop it). The current setup is kind of a prisoner's dilemma. Ideally everyone would approve housing next to them and that would be the impact almost everywhere would be small, since new construction would be spread out, and housing prices would go down a lot. But if you choose to opt out of new housing, well, then you get to deal with zero new construction, which for many people is an improvement. But then if everyone does that, hardly any new housing.