3 ms·

Where will the immigrants live? Or rather, unless you put them up in hotels and send them back when done, how do you account for providing them housing when ho

by surge 3y ago

Where will the immigrants live? Or rather, unless you put them up in hotels and send them back when done, how do you account for providing them housing when housing is already constrained?

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> We need to eliminate (most) zoning >> when housing is already constrained? By removing those constraints. OP accounted for this.
- surge 3y ago
  Every time I see moderate density housing built, it's luxury apartments (almost always 5 over 1) that have rents higher than my mortgage. I don't see how this is accounted for.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > its luxury apartments (almost always 5 over 1) that have rents higher than my mortgage. I don't see how this is accounted for It takes two years [1] to get a building permit, and the two-year borrowing rate for the U.S. Treasury is 4.44% [2]. That delay alone will cost a developer at least 10% more. That permiting process, alone, raises housing costs by double digits [a]. [1] https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/housing-permits-san-francisco-17652633.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/housing-permits-san-f... [2] https://home.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/interest-rates/TextView?type=daily_treasury_yield_curve&field_tdr_date_value_month=202312 https://home.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/... [a] 1.0444 ^ (627/365) = 7.75%
    - surge 3y ago
      So they'll be more incentivized for profit, not less. Also, OP never said any of this, you're just doing the thinking it out for them. My point is the housing being built isn't going to serve the those who are housing insecure or migrants working construction jobs. If anything these places are taking over the neighborhoods that used to serve that sector.
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > they'll be more incentivized for profit, not less Why would any of this change developers' profit motive? > the housing being built isn't going to serve the those who are housing insecure We agree. This is because housing supply is constrained. That raises its price, which makes it unaffordable for more people. Removing supply constraints changes that. Also, new luxury housing absolutely lowers housing prices. I've seen it personally. A luxury building opened nearby. I figured there was a 10 to 15% difference after accounting for amenities like its gym, in exchange for more space and a quieter apartment. Others clearly did the math, because we lost two people in the building to it. I showed my math to the landlord, told them I was considering decamping, and negotiated down my rent. I told my neighbours and they each did the same. We had more choices, and so had to pay less. Basic supply and demand.
        surge 3y ago
        There was just literally a scandal because real estate developers were inflating prices because it’s more profitable, even if it didn't reflect market demand. Developers have the same incentive, they are not incentivized to build properties they'll make less on, even if supply goes up. I've seen lots of properties built, they can be half unoccupied/empty and the rents/leases don't change. They're simply not going to lower the value of their own properties, they'll keep it inflated because at least then it’s a tax write-off/loss. This increased supply concept is being parroted but no one can provide examples of supply being increased and rents going down, or the very least demand can't be kept up with and no area gets saturated to the point prices go down. Usually the opposite happens, new apartment/housing = nicer neighborhood = more desirable area = rent/housing values go up. We usually call this gentrification. Not unless it was a government subsidized project or section 8 housing or a local economic collapse and people leaving (which cheap rent means little if there are no jobs/economy). Developers are very risk adverse, they’ll never build in an area that risks supply outstripping demand. I don't understand how people can live for 20 years, see these patterns and still believe the theories they get taught in economics 101 in school and think they're fully educated on the matter.

by surge 3y ago

Where will the immigrants live? Or rather, unless you put them up in hotels and send them back when done, how do you account for providing them housing when housing is already constrained?

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> We need to eliminate (most) zoning >> when housing is already constrained? By removing those constraints. OP accounted for this.

surge 3y ago
Every time I see moderate density housing built, it's luxury apartments (almost always 5 over 1) that have rents higher than my mortgage. I don't see how this is accounted for.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > its luxury apartments (almost always 5 over 1) that have rents higher than my mortgage. I don't see how this is accounted for It takes two years [1] to get a building permit, and the two-year borrowing rate for the U.S. Treasury is 4.44% [2]. That delay alone will cost a developer at least 10% more. That permiting process, alone, raises housing costs by double digits [a]. [1] https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/housing-permits-san-francisco-17652633.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/housing-permits-san-f... [2] https://home.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/interest-rates/TextView?type=daily_treasury_yield_curve&field_tdr_date_value_month=202312 https://home.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/... [a] 1.0444 ^ (627/365) = 7.75%
  - surge 3y ago
    So they'll be more incentivized for profit, not less. Also, OP never said any of this, you're just doing the thinking it out for them. My point is the housing being built isn't going to serve the those who are housing insecure or migrants working construction jobs. If anything these places are taking over the neighborhoods that used to serve that sector.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > they'll be more incentivized for profit, not less Why would any of this change developers' profit motive? > the housing being built isn't going to serve the those who are housing insecure We agree. This is because housing supply is constrained. That raises its price, which makes it unaffordable for more people. Removing supply constraints changes that. Also, new luxury housing absolutely lowers housing prices. I've seen it personally. A luxury building opened nearby. I figured there was a 10 to 15% difference after accounting for amenities like its gym, in exchange for more space and a quieter apartment. Others clearly did the math, because we lost two people in the building to it. I showed my math to the landlord, told them I was considering decamping, and negotiated down my rent. I told my neighbours and they each did the same. We had more choices, and so had to pay less. Basic supply and demand.
      - surge 3y ago
        There was just literally a scandal because real estate developers were inflating prices because it’s more profitable, even if it didn't reflect market demand. Developers have the same incentive, they are not incentivized to build properties they'll make less on, even if supply goes up. I've seen lots of properties built, they can be half unoccupied/empty and the rents/leases don't change. They're simply not going to lower the value of their own properties, they'll keep it inflated because at least then it’s a tax write-off/loss. This increased supply concept is being parroted but no one can provide examples of supply being increased and rents going down, or the very least demand can't be kept up with and no area gets saturated to the point prices go down. Usually the opposite happens, new apartment/housing = nicer neighborhood = more desirable area = rent/housing values go up. We usually call this gentrification. Not unless it was a government subsidized project or section 8 housing or a local economic collapse and people leaving (which cheap rent means little if there are no jobs/economy). Developers are very risk adverse, they’ll never build in an area that risks supply outstripping demand. I don't understand how people can live for 20 years, see these patterns and still believe the theories they get taught in economics 101 in school and think they're fully educated on the matter.